Wasserman wrote “nowhere have I seen accounts of harassing behavior intended to belittle or publicly humiliate Morrissey … Nowhere is there persecution or verbal abuse … where was the bullying?” As if bullies or the institutions that harbor them would publicly disclose evidence. The details, known to the university HR folks, are all cloaked beneath the cover of “confidentiality.” That’s why an outsider would not have “seen accounts.”That’s why for years we have called bullying the “silent epidemic.”

He also makes demeaning remarks about Morrissey, the person ultimately responsible for his own suicide. Revealing his true values, Wasserman laments that the Virginia Quarterly Review, a great magazine, might suffer from undeserved media coverage. Boo hoo! Ethics professor, really? VQR over its people? Defend Genoways without evidence? If Wasserman’s denial of reality that bullying could drive a person to suicide bothers you, he can be reached at this office: 540-458-8433.  Tell him the legacy of Kevin Morrissey sent you.

Go here to get the background on this story.

Workplace bullying was defined as “repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation.”

In a separate survey, a representative sample of 4,210 respondents was asked about employer engagement in anti-bullying activities. The vast majority (79%) either were not sure or were certain that employers do little to nothing to address it. Remarkably, 21% believed that U.S. employers are currently addressing it through policies and enforcement.

Though the question specifically asked about an anti-bullying policy separate from harassment and violence policies, which most employers do have, one-fifth of respondents still believed that employers had additional procedures to stop bullying.

“This surprising result is probably wishful thinking by bullied individuals and their friends who want to believe that their employer cares about them,” says Dr. Gary Namie, WBI Director. “Similar studies in Scandinavian countries where anti-bullying laws began in the mid-1990′s find a much lower employer compliance rate.”

The positive attitude toward employers was further illustrated by 56% of respondents reporting confidence that American employers would voluntarily stop bullying without being mandated by law to do so. Only 32% disagreed, believing only a legal obligation would compel action.

Respondents were also asked whether they support or oppose workplace bullying laws like the ones that have been introduced in 17 states since 2003 by the Healthy Workplace Bill Campaign. In 2010, both the New York and Illinois Senates passed the bill. However it has not yet become law in any state.

Of the WBI-Zogby respondents, 64% supported having laws to protect workers from “malicious, health-harming abusive conduct” committed by bosses and co-workers (the specific language contained in the introduced bills). 23.8% opposed laws. Gary Namie concludes, “Clearly a majority of Americans want a law. This statistic will be given to lawmakers as proof of the popular appeal of such legislation.”

###

Contact:
Gary Namie, PhD
360-656-6630
info@workplacebullying.org

Outsourced, NBC-TV show, premieres Sept. 23

From the network: “Outsourced” is a comedy where the Midwest meets the exotic East in a hilarious culture clash.

HaHa. Notwithstanding the crude stereotypes of Indians and the idiot American overseers who treat the workers like children (at least in the preview that the network must be proud to circulate publicly), there are serious problems facing Indian workers.

In India, the industry sector is called the ITES-BPO, information technology enabled services-business process outsourcing. India currently accounts for 46% of all global offshoring. The appeal, according to a 2003 NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service Companies) report, is “an unbeatable mix of low costs, deep technical and language skills, mature vendors, and supportive government policies.” Even with the influx of offshoring financial services, the industry still provides mostly standardized and routinized services of low complexity, emphasizing mass production and customer service.  To better understand the pressures faced by Indian call center workers, read Premilla D’Cruz’s 2010 article described elsewhere at this site.

The dilemmas facing Americans are more dire. Losing 500,000 more jobs in July 2010 and several million displaced since the great recession, laughing about offshoring or outsourcing domestic jobs is no laughing matter. Lost jobs in the U.S. means more than in most other industrialized nations. Everyone in the world who loses a job loses wages , but in the U.S. you also lose affordable health insurance when you need it most to cope with escalated stressors, you risk losing your home to foreclosure and for too many there is the loss of identity.

A movie produced by New Line, with shooting that began in July, 2010, is expected to a summer 2011 R-rated blockbuster with an all-star cast. The storyline according to one Hollywood “insider” trade publication:

Three best friends who, fed up with abuse from their employers, enlist the help of a scam artist called MF Jones to help murder them. Two of the horrible bosses are a coke-addled heir to a chemical company and a nymphomaniac dentist. The publication then gushes that almost all of the roles in the script by Jonathan Goldstein and ex-”Freaks and Geeks” star John Francis Daley are “great.” Then, seemingly without irony it states — “it’s a very funny, enjoyably mean-spirited piece of work, and with a cast like this, could be one of the better comedies of next year.”

The problem I have with the premise is how  “funny and enjoyable” is juxtaposed with “mean-spirited”? This semantic pairing baffles me. After decades of media pounding us with “sex and violence,” maybe Hollywood next wants to package funny and mean-spirited to go together. Wonder if bullied targets think the abuse they endure is very funny?

Don’t think I reject funny. Those who have seen me speak have seen my brand of humor. And I have spent lots of evenings in comedy clubs; I love slapstick.

But I resent the fact that before the media ever get around to seriously exploring workplace bullying in depth (NBC cancelled its airing of a full Dateline show on bullying in 2007), they want to trivialize it as if it were a joke.

Another funny hit, dilbert the comic strip, can be easily seen as mean spirited, too.

In conclusion, there’s money to be made laughing at, not with, the down and out during tough times. It’s a variation of the blame-the-victim theme rampant in our society.

Researchers from the National Institute on Aging (lead researcher Angelina Sutin, PhD) studied 5,614 residents of Sardinia, Italy. The measure of personalty traits was a modified version of the NEO, a popular five-factor personality assessment questionnaire. One dimension, Agreeableness, tapped a person’s courteousness toward others, desire to compete rather than cooperate, cold and calculating nature, inconsiderateness, willingness to manipulate others and to tell them that they are not liked. Disagreeableness is defined as agreement with the negative actions, and researchers called it an antagonistic personality. Antagonists are primarily antisocial.

There is previous work linking personality (Type A pattern and hostility) to CVD when clinical symptoms are already present (e.g., hypertension, heart attack, stroke).

This study’s major contribution was to use ultrasound technology (non-invasive ultrasonography) to measure arterial wall thickening, a sign of aging, that can predict future CVD. It is called intima-mediat thickness, IMT. IMT is what is called a surrogate marker for, predictor of, stroke and acute myocardial infarction (heart attack). In the study, participants’  IMTs of the carotid artery (which supplies most of the blood to the brain) were measured.

Researchers measured participants’ IMT twice with three intervening years (a longitudinal study, the best way to measure individual changes) as well as measuring blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and diabetes.

The principal result was that the people considered most antagonistic (in the bottom 10% NEO Agreeableness scores) had a 40% increased risk for elevated IMT (in the top 25%), carotid artery wall thickening with its associated risk of stroke.

Antagonistic men had more IMT (averaging 0.04 mm) than non-antagonistic men. The IMT difference for women between antagonistic people and non-antagonistic people was greater than the difference for men (averaging 0.06 mm). This suggests that the role of personality was greater for women.

Because those with thickening had not yet had strokes or other clinical symptoms of CVD, the authors suggest that interventions to minimize the personality problem might be undertaken to prevent cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Redford Williams (see the above video) told a MedPage editor that the degree of cardiovascular event risk suggested by the study findings as associated with antagonistic personality traits was comparable to that of high LDL cholesterol, hypertension, or smoking.
“We really need, in this country and around the world, to begin to focus on ameliorating the effect of psychosocial risk factors just as we are on the physical risk factors,” said Williams.

RELEVANCE to the workplace bullying movement.

Obviously, the study suggests that the hotheaded, emotionally volatile bullies face a health risk of their own. But it could be that bullied targets who are exposed to unending stress from their bully’s assaults (a psychosocial risk factor) can become cynical and skeptical because their trust in the organization is eroded over time.

When individuals no longer feel safe and necessarily retreat from open social interactions which make them feel more vulnerable, they might become temporarily antisocial. Targets are typically high self-disclosers, open and trusting. When that personality style leads to psychological injuries, they may adopt more self-protective, antisocial approaches. They may start to act antagonistically. They certainly stop cooperating with employers who have enabled the harm to happen and failed to stop it. This study tell us that if they become more antagonistic, they risk more health problems.

Finally, it is important to educate courts and public officials to the solid empirical evidence that negative psychosocial factors adversely impact a person’s health as much as smoking, cholesterol, and glucose and insulin levels.

###

Additional reading:

Unpleasant People May Be More Prone to Stroke By John Gever, MedPage Today, August 16, 2010

Antagonistic people have thicker carotid walls, increased CVD risk by Lisa Nainggoian, HeartWire, August 16, 2010

The original source, very technical, article:  Sutin A, et al. “Trait antagonism and the progression of arterial thickening. Women with antagonistic traits have similar carotid arterial thickness as men” Hypertension 2010; DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.155317.

Celebrate with us!

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!!

The Saskatoon chapter of Business & Professional Women hosts the

Powerless to Powerful Conference

Empowering ourselves against workplace bullying

Saturday-Sunday October 23-24

Travelodge, 106 Circle Drive, Saskatoon

Saskatchewan

Hon. D. Morgan, Q.C.

Invited Guests:

• Don Morgan, MLA, Minister of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety

• Peter J. Barnacle, Woloshyn & Co. Barristers, Labour & Employment specialist

• Dr. Ruth Namie & Dr. Gary Namie, Workplace Bullying Institute, presentations on Sat. Oct. 23

Ruth: (1) Impact of Bullying on Individuals, Family & Community; (2) Targets & Self-Defeating Strategies

Gary: (1) Identifying Bullying; (2) Converting Witnesses to Interveners; (3) Causes of Bullying in Societal & Organizational Traditions

• Shelle Rose Chavert & others

Registration details: Early (before Sept. 23) $295 (CDN); Sept 24 – day of event, $395.

Online registration will be available soon. Watch this space.

Celebrate with us!

To help celebrate Freedom Week 2010 in Northern California, spend

An Evening with Ruth and Gary Namie

Tuesday October 19, South San Francisco – Grosvenor Best Western Hotel
Wednesday October 20, Sacramento — Radisson Sacramento

Each night the doors open at 6 pm.

The Drs. Namie will lead a seminar from 7 to 9 pm covering.
• Updates on the newest science related to bullying
• Status of the workplace bullying movement begun in Benicia in ’97
• Employer responses to bullying
• Status of the law in various states

Afterwards, members of California Healthy Workplace Advocates (CHWA) will be present to describe the 2011 campaign to enact the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill.

S. San Francisco hotel location: 380 S. Airport Blvd., SSF
Sacramento hotel location: 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento

Registration is $40 per person.
Inscribed copies of the Namies’ book, revised ’09 edition, The Bully At Work, must be preordered at time of registration.
$55 covers event + book

REGISTER ONLINE (using secure PayPal) or call with your credit card — 360-656-6630

Download & share the event flyer.

Make your own Freedom Week celebration/demonstration/project/rally.

Read the Aug. 24, 2010 post, From boss to bully: When has it gone too far?

Listen to the audio report.

Read this Aug. 23 article: “The Rise and Fall of Ted Genoways” by the editor of ZYZZYVASPEAKS, a journal of West Coast writers & authors

Tale of Woe: The death of Kevin Morrissey by Dave McNair, August 18, 2010

Take time to read the several comments, including mine.

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

Trish

Ted Genoways, VQR editor accused of bullying by suicide victim's sister

At universities, people tend to think of teaching and research faculty and staff as the only employees. At the University of Virginia, the president supports a literary journal, the Virginia Quarterly Review, prestigious to poets and fiction writers. Kevin Morrissey, 52, the VQR managing editor had been hired by a young Ted Genoways, 38, new himself to the editor post in 2003.

On July 30, Kevin Morrissey committed suicide after a reported three years of torment by Genoways despite the two having a genuine friendship at the start of their work together.

There was a record of several calls by Morrissey to university institutional helpers (HR, ombuds, EAP, president’s office). Either his call for help was not answered or treated with indifference. Those familiar with Morrissey’s complaints said that the rationalization for Genoways was that creative people like him could be difficult to work with and were often bad managers! In other words, live with him, adjust to him, Genoways is indispensable. Note the abdication of responsibility by this employer for the safe working conditions of its employees.

Said one fawning former intern, “Ted (Genoways) is the creative genius … the fulcrum of discussions about the future of VQR and, honestly, the future of journalism … Ted is the star at the center of VQR‘s constellation.” A publisher familiar with VQR lamented that “A crisis like this  (triggered by Morrissey’s suicide) can be a death blow (sic), even to the strongest scholarly publication.”

The magazine had won awards and Genoways himself won a fellowship allowing him to be out of the office. His focus was on funding and enlisted the help of a 24-yr. old UV graduate, Alana Levinson-LaBrosse (she was so rich she gave $1.5 million herself to the university). Morrissey and she reportedly clashed as she, not Morrissey, was included in activities with Genoways.

Kevin Morrissey

Staff recalled Genoways screaming at Morrissey behind closed doors. Three VQR staffers even accompanied Morrissey to the president’s office to complain about Genoways. They were brushed off. There is evidence that Genoways sent Morrissey an e-mail accusing him of “unacceptable workplace behavior,” without specifications, ordered him to work from home and prohibited communication with other VQR staff. These are all classic tactics employed by bullies who enjoy privileged protection from the CEO (the former university president who left in July).  They not completely unlike torture. The tactics were probably retaliation for Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse fighting.

The only tangible response from the administration was an apology by the president’s chief of staff to VQR staff for witnessing the clash between Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse at a meeting. No apology to Morrissey. No other official response to Morrissey’s complaints. No holding Genoways accountable. No offer of counseling to Morrissey.

Morrissey’s death followed Genoways’ draconian decisions and one last denigrating e-mail on the morning of his suicide. In that e-mail, Genoways, the espo0used “genius” and “star,” accused Morrissey of failing to help a contributor to a VQR story such that Morrissey put that man’s life at risk!

There was a report that some close to the situation warned the university that Morrissey might commit suicide.

Even after Morrissey’s death, the UVa’s official response to the request for complaint and response details from reporter Robin Wilson for the Chronicle of Higher Education (the source for this story), the university hid behind a faux shield of “confidential personnel records.” Morrissey’s surviving sister blames Genoways and the university and may file a lawsuit.

The negligent employer gets to bury the secrets to protect itself from being revealed.

Read Robin Wilson’s story:  What Killed Kevin Morrissey?

###

Epilogue

There’s even more to the Univ. Virginia tale. A couple of years ago, UVa recruited WBI to come to campus. UVa instead brought in a “motivational” speaker. At WBI, we pass on several on-site speeches when employers resist creating a solution for the problem that prompted the request in the first place.

The result at UVa was that nothing was done after the speech. The President’s office was not engaged in discussions about bullying, and possibly the specific Kevin Morrissey complaints. If something had been in place, Morrissey would not have had to resort to pleading with HR and the other institutional helpers as his phone records indicated was done. HR may be implicated in Morrissey’s death. And the feel-good motivational speaker actually encouraged this negligent employer to believe that it had adequately addressed bullying on campus with a speech alone!  Get serious UVa. What will it take to get American employers to stop the carnage within the ranks?

Protecting my interests: HRM and targets’ coping with workplace bullying.

Bullied targets beware! This May 2010 article by IAWBH Board member Premilla D’Cruz debunks some myths about Human Resources positive role in ameliorating bullying.

The context for the study is that previous work has shown that organizations generally do nothing or deem the complainant a troublemaker when bullying is reported. This study explores human resource management’s (HRM) influence on targets’ coping.

I found two HRM typologies used in the study to be pragmatic and useful. The first is Hard and Soft HRM. The former approach exploits employees as inputs in the production process useful only for maximized economic gain. Soft HRM treats humans as assets requiring investment because skilled people add value to the organization. Using the rhetoric of “professionalism,” HR masks hard HRM tactics to better control employees. Professional employees are encouraged to give work and loyalty a higher priority than personal needs ensuring compliance with org requirements, accepting discipline and termination as part of a rational process.

The second HRM dimension is Inclusivist vs. Exclusivist. Inclusivist strategies foster employee loyalty and engagement. The exclusivist approach is transactional in nature focusing on dismissal, layoffs, outsourcing and opposition to unionization.

The authors interviewed 59 telephone call center workers in Mumbai and Bangalore, India whose work is characterized by high volume and service quality demands and the ever-present threat of punishment. Specifically, their methodology adopted hermeneutic phenomenology, the descriptions and interpretations of participants’ work lives as they experienced them. Workers described the work environment as oppressive but that their employer cared about them. From the original group of interviewees, 10 bullied targets who were all new to the call center and not unionized were interviewed about their experiences. Transcriptions of the recorded interviews were analyzed for themes and revealing patterns of themes — specifically how did HRM affect coping with bullying.

The intensive interviews yielded four themes akin to stages of the bullying experience:

• initial confusion (over the bully’s selection of them as targets and the jarring juxtaposition of the espoused professionalism with the unprofessional mistreatment);

• trusting the employer grievance processes for redress (HR initially gives reassurances that a positive solution would result, HR delays are rationalized, eventually senior HR managers admonish complainants and hold them responsible for their fate, HR supports the bullies and the bullies retaliate using the complaint as rationale);

• moving inwards (emotional strain is devastating, social networks make targets feel loved and valued, others convince targets that alternatives exist, once the decision to move is made confidence and productivity return because of their strong work ethic); and

• exiting (though new post-bullying job meant leaving without notice or employer support, sense of regained control, lingering feelings of injustice over having to leave).

The authors conclude that HRM renders employees completely vulnerable because it operates as a one-sided managerial function that looks after only the organizations’ interests leaving the bullied employee with nothing more than their own individual voice. In other words, the maxim that HR is not an advocate for the interests of bullied targets seems true.

Source:  Premilla D’Cruz & Ernesto Noronha. (May, 2010) Protecting my interests: HRM and targets’ coping with workplace bullying. The Qualitative Report, 15 (3), 507-534.

Read the article for yourself.

When a woman passenger rose, before she was permitted, to get her carry-on luggage ahead of everyone else, Slater went to her to stop her. She swore at him and swung her bag that hit Slater. The frustrated (but unarmed) Slater did two unthinkable things. He got on the intercom and sent a public F*** you to the woman who had sworn at him so all the passengers knew. [Read the apology by a contrite veteran passenger who doesn't blame Slater.] He grabbed some beers from the cart (a self-defeating act for the admitted  alcoholic in recovery) and opened the exit door opposite the jetway and inflated the emergency chute and simply left. He made it all the way out of the airport and home where police arrested him. (What does that say about the TSA’s value?)

The dramatic exit was an inventive, and workplace-specific, way to simply leave the situation. It was a “take this job and shove it” move admired by many frustrated workers. Here is the animated version. Given his humble mumblings after release from jail the next day about how good most passengers are, he might have been more ashamed of what he had done and just needed to escape, to escape the only way possible before the jetway door was open.

I think we deserve to know the name of the belligerent, rule-breaking, and profane woman passenger from Pittsburgh. She’s the a**hole in this story.

Slater is a folk hero to the silent masses who suffer indignities from customers and bad bosses. Jet Blue, the employer, will probably can him. I hope his pension, if any has been earned from his quarter century of service in a tough customer service business, is intact. Deployment of the chute was the potentially illegal act that could bring 7 years of prison time. [Wow. Rapists don't serve an average of 7 years, murderers barely. For some reason, the experts say that chute deployment could have hurt workers on the ground.]

According to the NBC legal guy says in the Today Show segment below, Jet Blue might not want the difficulty of finding a jury to try workers’ hero Slater. He lost the job for now. Eager to see where he lands. Another airline picks him up to train attendants using his vast experience — of being in control and of losing his cool that one time. Just hope he doesn’t land his own reality show on the “d” list of cable channels.

The final point of mine is that this is a tale of two men frustrated at their jobs. Thornton had time to plan his aggression. His girlfriend believed he was lashing out a racist workforce that had mistreated him. A frustrated man with ready access to a private gun arsenal resulted in a protypical American massacre to redress his frustrations. The immediacy of Slater’s frustration could have led to an impulsive, unplanned violent episode. However, he had few options. The differences in personalities will never be adequately compared.

Different men, different outcomes. But one thing is certain — without guns present, no one got hurt. I support Slater and you can too.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite murky details, we feel confident only about following:

• Thornton was shown surveillance video (of a good quality according to Thornton) of stealing inventory at a scheduled morning disciplinary meeting the morning of the massacre

Skeptics wonder about the tape, but there was more than one witness to the showing. This is not to say that employers do not manufacture “evidence” of wrongdoing. They simply lie about events, making a rational defense impossible. However, they rarely go to the extent of producing a doctored videotape. This is a small business not in the tech business. Thornton was not a repeat offender, so they likely did not make such an expensive investment.

He was accused of stealing inventory and selling it.

• the beer delivery truck driver (Thornton) was given the option to resign or be fired (not really alternatives) with his union president, Bryan Cirigliano at his side

A humiliating moment to be sure for anyone. At least his Weingarten rights were preserved. Not much the union could have done if theft was confirmed.

• Thornton was being escorted away from the meeting room when he began shooting

This is the infamous HR “exit parade,” the “perp walk,” the banishment. We’re not sure if HR or security did the escorting. It is another form of employer humiliation.

• both employer and the union said that Thornton had not filed any previous complaints or grievances
Harassed workers rarely complain. The history of complainants being retaliated against ripples through the company grapevine and becomes legend. Fear alone suppresses the complaints. The ones who abuse the employer complaint/union grievance processes do so multiple times. They use the policies and contracts to harass the employer. They drive the union reps crazy to the point they start to refuse to file grievances that tend to embarrass the union. If Thornton had not filed formally before, he was not a chronic filer. Could he actually have been harassed and not filed? Certainly, for the reasons stated.

Therefore, the employer and union hiding behind the absence of formal complaints or grievances by Thornton is not proof that he was not harassed. In hindsight (which all of this speculation is), he would have been taken more seriously had he filed.

• Hannah’s mother, Joanne Hannah, claimed that Thornton told her daughter he had complained both to a company supervisor and a union rep

• Thornton’s girlfriend, Kristi Hannah, claimed that Thornton said he had complained to his union rep

If a union rep or steward does not like the member, he or she can block that member’s route to redress. By hearing a verbal complaint and failing to file a grievance, the rep keeps the disrespected member in her or his place. It’s not right, but it happens frequently. Union members often report to us that their union disregarded them as much as HR did. Did Thornton lie about telling his rep? We’ll never know until a union member comes forward with the truth. Unfortunately, he may have told the president he shot and killed that morning carrying the truth to the grave.

• Thornton’s girlfriend, Kristi Hannah, claimed that Thornton said he had complained to her about racism

She said he showed her cell phone photos of crude drawings on the workplace bathroom wall of a noose around his neck with the inscription “Kill the n-word” and reported overhearing a co-worker say he wanted “that n-word out of there.” Ross Hollander, the company owner, said “I can state to you unequivocally no racism claim was ever alleged.” Of course, this would be the post-event stance if the work environment was racist. The craziness in our current political world seems to embrace a return to racist times. There was a noose incident in mid-state Illinois this year that enraged the state NAACP because its perpetrators experienced no consequences. Believe it. It happens, and in the north.

• Thornton called the State Police 911 dispatcher to admit he did the shooting and that it was over (except for his suicide)

During the call, Thornton described the two handguns used to kill eight others as “two of my favorites.” He legally owned six registered firearms. Why in the post-massacre analysis does the media never question the incendiary mix of readily accessible lethal weapons and an emotionally volatile state. He also told the dispatcher, “We’re just talking, you’re gonna play something on the news, you know I’m gonna be popular…” This is a common theme to shooters. Their world was out of their control, the massacre is their way of restoring control. Thornton said “They treat me bad over here and all the other black employees bad over here too…So I took it into my own hands and handled the problem.”

• bullied individuals do not react automatically with anger as some believe

Anger would have been a sign that he was relatively bullyproof. He would not have been afraid to confront. Targets shirk from confrontation. That’s why it is silly to ask them to confront, or even learn to confront.

This not to be confused with Thornton potentially feeling powerless to counter whatever racism was directed his way. There were many against his few. We don’t know how the other black employees acted toward him. Were they also victims? Why or why not?

Thornton’s anger could have been a simple frustration-aggression response with little to no emotional component. Bullying involves emotional injury.

The initial reaction of targets of workplace bullying is often to turn inward. Personal shame (the result of attempts to humiliate you) dictates actions. Feelings are kept inside and rarely shared, even with partners. Only after a long period of time does anger bubble to the surface. The anger most likely comes from the symptoms of hypervigilance associated with PTSD. Hence the anger and rage displayed by traumatized military veterans that puts spouses in danger of violence. PTSD is often delayed and the effects last long after the traumatizing events. But notice how the source (the emotional injury) is different than a more spontaneous, hair-trigger response when someone without PTSD explodes. In the latter case, it may have more to do with an inability to control violent impulses.

• bullied targets are gentle souls, too “nice” for their own good, non-confrontive

Not sure about the research here, but wondering how many bullied targets are gun aficionados. Thornton loved his guns to the point that the handguns he took into the facility that fateful day were two of his “favorites.” Therefore, he didn’t own guns to have them gather dust in a case. On the day of the shooting, he had a shotgun in his car. Hand-eye coordination fans fire virtual guns in video games. Gun nuts use them not just to keep a sharp eye. They love the power gun use conveys to owners. Targets are victims of the abuse of power, rarely its practitioners. Who knows, maybe targets love guns for their power because they are powerless at work. All untested hypotheses.

• Thornton had a plan to restore order to his world, was not insane

This was about seeking justice to him. He didn’t spray the workplace with bullets. He targeted some for death and avoided other individuals. He chased one co-worker outside the building and had to shoot his way back in to keep up the slaughter. He also spoke on his cell for 10 minutes with his mother. She was unable to talk him out of suicide.

• the causal link between a toxic work environment and massacre as solution is an indirect connection at best

As facts filter in, there may have been a set of conditions at Hartford Distributors that could drive a sane person to consider killing others as a solution (not if that person has no access to an arsenal of weapons). For example, our academic colleague Ken Westhues posts a report about the Virginia Tech massacre. That student was tormented by one of the professors.

There does always seem to be a “story behind the story.” Our society (read superficial media coverage) prefers to discount all shooters as nuts. They all have chosen extreme solutions, but they were not all previously insane. Nor were most insane when shooting. The explanations are complicated because they involve at least four parts:
- an alienated individual (either who started that way or was driven to the state)
- a toxic work environment created and sustained by the employer
- the failure to find allies at work (from diffident co-workers, obstinate union reps who refuse to engage, indifferent employer/HR reps),  and
-the availability of weapons.

Kneejerk post hoc analysis is inadequate. The documentary Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal explores these factors to understand the why “going postal” happens so much. Thoughtful commentary by criminologist Alan Fox (Northeastern University) and psychiatrist Michael Welner provides the right level of analysis. I also address the role of work environment in the film. The film is 80+ minutes long. TV news segments about the shooting are usually no longer than 3 minutes!

So, let’s be careful to not equate workers targeted by bullying with shooters in workplace massacres. Not everyone with PTSD injures or kills his spouse. Not everyone with bipolar disorder is a danger to society. Bullied targets are more likely to retreat from society than to mount a guns-blazing deadly assault on peers.

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

The arguments in both sides of the debate follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the reality for too many innocent targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. Sellars
SLS Consulting
Summerville, SC

G. Namie

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

Original source.

Note the correct spelling of his name Yamada, not Yamata.

There are some very important things they don’t tell you on career day. Chief among them is that there is a good chance that at some point during your working adult life you will have an abusive boss — the kind who uses his or her authority to torment subordinates. Bullying bosses scream, often with the goal of humiliating. They write up false evaluations to put good workers’ jobs at risk. Some are serial bullies, targeting one worker and, when he or she is gone, moving on to their next victim.

Bosses may abuse because they have impossibly high standards, are insecure or have not been properly socialized. But some simply enjoy it. Recent brain-scan research has shown that bullies are wired differently. When they see a victim in pain, it triggers parts of their brain associated with pleasure.

Worker abuse is a widespread problem — in a 2007 WBI-Zogby poll, 37% of American adults said they had been bullied at work — and most of it is perfectly legal. Workers who are abused based on their membership in a protected class — race, nationality or religion, among others — can sue under civil rights laws. But the law generally does not protect against plain old viciousness.

That may be about to change. Workers’ rights advocates have been campaigning for years to get states to enact laws against workplace bullying, and in May they scored their biggest victory. The New York state senate passed a bill that would let workers sue for physical, psychological or economic harm due to abusive treatment on the job. If New York’s Healthy Workplace Bill becomes law, workers who can show that they were subjected to hostile conduct — including verbal abuse, threats or work sabotage — could be awarded lost wages, medical expenses, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages.

Not surprisingly, many employers oppose the bill. They argue that it would lead to frivolous lawsuits and put them at risk for nothing more than running a tight ship and expecting a lot from their workers. But supporters of the law point out that it is crafted to cover only the most offensive and deliberate abuse. The bill requires that wrongful conduct be done with “malice,” and in most cases that it has to be repeated. It also provides affirmative defenses for companies that investigate promptly and address the problem in good faith.

The New York state assembly is expected to take up the bill next year. At least 16 other states are considering similar bills, and some employment-law experts think antibullying legislation may have real momentum now.

Legislatures are not the only ones standing up to bullies. In 2008, the Indiana supreme court struck a blow against workplace bullying when it upheld a $325,000 verdict against a cardiovascular surgeon. A medical technician who operated a heart and lung machine during surgery accused the surgeon of charging at him with clenched fists, screaming and swearing. The formal legal claims were intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault, but the plaintiff argued it as a bullying case, and had an expert on workplace bullying testify at trial.

Ideally, employers should rein in abusive bosses on their own, but that rarely happens. Many bullies are close to powerful people in the organization and carefully target less powerful ones. When John Bolton was nominated to be ambassador to the U.N. by President George W. Bush, a former subordinate told the Senate that Bolton was a “serial abuser” and — in a phrase that has since entered the bullying lexicon — a “kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.”

There are reasons workplace bullying may be getting worse now, including the bad economy. In good times, abused workers can simply walk out on a job if they are being mistreated. But with unemployment at around 9.5%, and five job seekers for every available job, many employees feel they have no choice but to stay put.

Another factor is the decline of organized labor. Unions were once a worker’s front-line defense against an abusive boss. If a supervisor was out of line, the shop steward would talk to him — on behalf of all of the workers. But union membership has fallen from 35% of the workforce in the 1950s to under 13% today, and some unions are less aggressive than they once were.

That leaves litigation. There seems to be a strong constituency for laws allowing workers to sue over workplace abuse. The vote on the Healthy Workplace Bill was bipartisan and not close: New York state senators favored it 45 to 16.

If states enact laws of this kind and lawsuits begin to be filed, juries are far more likely to sympathize with the bullied worker than the bullying boss — and damages awards could be large. There is one easy way for employers to head all of this off: get more serious about rooting out abusive bosses before serious damage is done.

###

Write a comment on the Time website (to counter the hard-heart idiots) or here.

Read the original article.

UPDATE: As of Thurs. July 22, 93% of those who voted want a law! To elected state & federal legislators: if you are looking for a “populist” thing to do to help your beleaguered constituents, turn your back on SHRM and the Chamber of Commerce and do something for the “small people” (aka, the real persons, not Supreme Court “persons,” the corporations.)

For those new to the Workplace Bullying Institute, visit our Healthy Workplace Bill Legislative Campaign website to see the history of the anti-bullying bill movement led by State Coordinators and citizen lobbyists just like you. Sign up to help in your state.

Just like the workplace, it’s the exposure to unremitting stress that injures. Writer Joshua Kors has been reporting since 2007 on the military psychologists’ reluctance to diagnosis PTSD, many electing to prostitute themselves by deceitfully employing the Chapter 5-13 discharge for having a “personality disorder.” A PD diagnosis deprives the warrior vet of post-discharge treatment and medical coverage by the Veterans Administration (VA) earned by her or his service to country.

Michael Wolcoff, VA acting undersecretary for benefits told the Washington Post, “We are acknowledging the inherently stressful nature of the places and circumstances of military service, in which the reality and fear of hostile or terrorist activities is always present.”

More good news:  the change in rules apply to claims that are new or pending and previously denied claimants are invited to re-apply.

More than 400,000 veterans of all military operations receive benefits for the disorder, of which about 19,000 are women, according to the VA. VA compensation is about $27,000 per year.

What could possibly be wrong with the rule change? The private mental health clinicians who treat and diagnosis vets are excluded.  The Army is confident that their clinicians are good (but read the Kors series about psychologists willing to lie when the lies and coverup go all the way up the ladder to Army surgeon general Gale Pollock).

Offering a warning is Richard Cohen, executive director of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates. In his legal advocacy role for vets, he has seen federal clinicians with minimal experience with PTSD who had rejected legitimate claims.  Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a nonprofit group, said that federal clinicians and claims adjudicators were often adversarial in dealing with veterans seeking benefits. “V.A. needs to train their examination staff so that they understand that P.T.S.D. is associated with deployment,” Mr. Sullivan said. “It’s a cultural thing.”

The other shortcoming of the new regulation is its temporary status. An enacted law, however, would lock in the spirit of helping combat vets and the diagnosis of PTSD. Rep. John Hall (D-NY-19th District ) (and 17 co-sponsors) introduced HR 952 in the current Congress. Passing the bill would also allow non-military clinicians to diagnose.

Read the official VA memo announcing the new regulation. Turns out the start date announced was wrong and could screw up the filing process for some vets. Tip o’ the hat to VA Watchdog for catching the error.

What has this got to do with workplace bullying? Because any progress in recognizing traumatization from work could eventually make it easier for bullied individuals at work to be believed and taken seriously when their injuries interfere with living and working through PTSD’s debilitating emotional consequences.

The film will be screened at the Montreal World Film Festival Aug. 26 to Sept. 6, 2010

Interviews with Director Emil Chiaberi and Charlie Withers at the Royal Oak premiere.
If you were at Royal Oak, write your own review here, please.

Read the local Daily Tribune press coverage.

Elizabeth Blackburn won the 2009 Nobel prize for Medicine and Physiology. I previously wrote about her work. Briefly, she discovered 20 years ago the telomere, chromosome-protecting caps at the end of strands of DNA. Telomere damage or shortening translates to advanced cellular aging.

Telomere = Greek for "end" (telos) and "part" (meros)

In the WBI Research Library article C3 by Elissa Epel and Blackburn and others, the researchers use telomere length and telomerase enzyme levels to show that mothers who raise special needs children may have their lives shortened by between 9 and 12 years from the stress that they reported.

Now comes news that Epel and Blackburn at the University of California, San Francisco, are soliciting women ages 50 to 65 to volunteer for a study beginning August, 2010. The purposes are to develop a test for telomere length, to assess the correlation with lifestyle behaviors, and the reaction to learning how likely you are to live a long (or stress-shortened) life.

Here is an application of basic science to the real world. Is the telomere a predictor of longevity or overall health? Older genetic tests can predict one’s risk for cancer or Alzheimer’s. This may be the next big breakthrough.

To volunteer, women must be in good health and between ages 50-65. Call 415-476-7634 or e-mail  knowyourtelomeres@ucsf.edu

Also read the July 5 article by Erin Allday in the San Francisco Chronicle

On days when the weather is fine and there is relatively no wind, BP conducts up to a dozen “controlled burns”, torching vast expanses of the ocean surface within a corral of fireproof booms.

Biologists say such burns are deadly for young turtles because oil and sargassum – the seaweed mats that provide nutrients to jellyfish and a range of other creatures – – congregate in the same locations. The sargassum is also a perfect hunting ground for young sea turtles, who are not developed enough to dive to the ocean floor to forage for food.

Once BP moves in, the turtles are doomed. “They drag a boom between two shrimp boats and whatever gets caught between the two boats, they circle it up and catch it on fire. Once the turtles are in there, they can’t get out,” Ellis said. ….

Harming or killing a sea turtle carries fines of up to $50,000 (£33,000).”It is criminal and cruel and they need to be held accountable,” said Carole Allen, Gulf office director of the Sea Turtle Restoration Project.

This animal abusing corporation is the same one that hires beach cleaners from the ranks of distressed coastal residents and fishermen and forbids them to don respirators when handling toxic raw crude! Let’s quit making nice with BP and treating them respectfully when they obviously care not one whit about environmental endangerment and helpless creatures or the safety of human beings.

Read the original article.
Watch video interview of a witnessing boat captain. Interviewer: Catherine Craig.

Read the original article. Tip o’ the hat to Victoria Pynchon.

Worklessness and health – what do we know about the causal

For an easy download of this document, go here.

Also read about the disturbing trend of employers refusing to hire the unemployed!

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

Download Podcast 17 (in .mp3 format) or Subscribe to the Podcasts.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

If nothing else, BP and Goldman Sachs demonstrate clearly that U.S. employers have NO OBLIGATION to society or the world’s economic stability, so why should they care about little ole you? A Gary Namie podcast.

Download Podcast 16 (in .mp3 format) or Subscribe to the Podcasts.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

An interesting group to target for imposing pain — workers who have lost their livelihood. Ironically, according to a National Employment Law Project report, “the Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar of UI benefits results in $1.90 of economic activity, making unemployment insurance one of the most effective forms of short-term stimulus.” The hypocritical Senate, driven entirely by the invisible hand of republican boycott, as part of the same stimulus package bill has left intact $32 billion worth of business tax cuts. That’s money lost to the US Treasury, given to business not available to normal Americans.

American politics at the state and federal levels has devolved into giving business whatever it wants with the misguided assumption that helping them will translate to jobs for Americans. The facts are that if they hire at all, they go overseas to minimize costs. To hell with the people who do the work but have been put out on the street by those same businesses! In the Senate the turned upside down priorities of government are on daily, gory display.

The relevance of this haggling over legislation that most Americans consider “making sausage” and not worthy of scrutiny is that it shows your elected officials shafting individuals (and who lost that living). Ignore at your own peril.

If only Tester and the others sought to punish BP for the crimes it is committing today and into the future.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an article describing an initiative of the American Arbitration Association, the ADR Consortium, and the Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations at Loyola University Chicago (Prof. Lamont Stallworth). They believe they can mitigate faculty bullying in colleges and universities. See full article and the related comments. Then read our opinion on the mix of mediation and workplace bullying.

From the WBI 2000 survey of hostile workplaces (online, non-scientific) 30% of women targets of bullying reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); 21% of men targets. Psychological injuries are common in bullying cases.

Fortunately, most people experience intense anxiety, panic attacks, and depressive symptoms rather than the extreme case of traumatization when an individual’s coping responses are completely overwhelmed. PTSD is extreme stress. PTSD is characterized by hypervigilance (an edginess, heightened arousal, agitation, obsessivness, and anger), intrusive thoughts (nightmares, flashbacks, unpredictable interruptions of normal thoughts and feelings), and avoidance (a desire to not visit the same people, places and feelings associated with the traumatizing incidents). PTSD is falsely seen only as a war injury. People are traumatized by the horrors of war (killing and death, witnessed and perpetrated), but also by natural disasters and tragedies the disrupt routine lives.

People who join the military are especially at risk. All trauma and stress risks are magnified with unremitting, prolonged exposure to horrific conditions. It is noteworthy that Britain and Canada treats their military veterans more humanely than the U.S. To minimize the ravages of PTSD, tours of duty are shorter than one year and there is a limit to the amount of uninterrupted time that soldiers and sailors can spend in a war zone. American military leaders have been less caring. Though they sometimes publicly remark that the troops are worn out, “stop-loss” is used to deny the rightful end of contracted military time for soldiers eager to return to non-military society. Stop-loss is an exploitation of the government’s power to make its own rules as employer, not subject to any civilian laws. Stop-loss guarantees an over-exposure to horror that no human should have to bear. It is instrumental in creating the estimated 30-45% prevalence of PTSD among Iraq/Afghanistan veteran. When they can’t escape to healing respite back home, the likelihood of injury skyrockets.

Psychiatrist Dr. Kernan Manion treated traumatized Marine vets and warned his superiors of violence potential on bases and in neighboring towns. “If not more Fort Hoods, Camp Liberties, soldier fratricide, spousal homicide, we’ll see it individually in suicides, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, family dysfunction, in formerly fine young men coming back and saying, as I’ve heard so many times, ‘I’m not cut out for society. I can’t stand people. I can’t tolerate commotion. I need to live in the woods,’” Manion explained to reporter Dahr Jamail. “That’s what we’re going to have. Broken, not contributing, not functional members of society. It infuriates me – what they are doing to these guys, because it’s so ineptly run by a system that values rank and power more than anything else – so we’re stuck throwing money into a fragmented system of inept clinics and the crisis goes on.”

In 2007, Joshua Kors reported on the Army mental health corps’ refusal to own the responsibility for injuring veterans with PTSD (and even some with physical traumatic brain injuries). Instead of making the correct PTSD diagnosis for those vets so they could receive VA health benefits for long-term medication and treatment, some Army psychologists were deliberately labeling the injured as having personality disorders. A personality disorder is a permanent mental health problem, not an injury, and must have begun in childhood. Also the deceitful misdiagnosis prevented vets from VA benefit eligibility. Thus, the Department of Defense, as employer, put its employees in harms way, many are injured as a result, then the employer dodges liability by blaming the employee.

Substitute DoD with the name of your employer. You get hired to perform work and are assigned a supervisor or gang of co-workers who decide that it is more important to bully you than to allow you to do work. You seek relief. The employer denies its responsibility for the work conditions that have begun to harm you psychologically. If you do not escape and the exposure continues, the stress takes its toll on your health. When threats to your safety are severe, you risk PTSD. You find a therapist who correctly identifies your toxic workplace — the mistreating people in it as well as the way work is assigned with no regard for your safety or professional development — as the cause of the severe stress. You beg for relief but are not believed. Soon you lose the job you once loved for no reason other than the fact that some jackass arbitrarily hated you, most likely because your competence posed a threat.

Now from the military comes another tale of terror. Reporter Dahr Jamail posted his essay at the Truthout website. He writes about Eric Jasinski, a 23 year old who enlisted in 2005.  Jasinski’s Iraq tour ended in Dec., 2007. He was troubled and drinking heavily. A military counselor sent him to a civilian doc. He was diagnosed with PTSD by the civilian. He was given medications and waiting for his military contract to end in Feb., 2009.

However, the Army stop-lossed Jasinski adn he was given a month’s notice that he would return to Iraq. The military pharmacy issued a 90-day supply of medication. Another military counselor asked if he was suicidal. Jasinski said no. The hurried counselor said “well, you’re good to go then.” Jasinski knew that he could not serve again without treating his PTSD, so he went AWOL until Dec., 2009 when he turned himself in at Fort Hood, Texas. Jasinski asked for a medical discharge.

Instead, he had a March 31, 2010 court martial. He was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail, not a mental health facility as requested. The Army never did respond to his requests for help. He served 25 days and was released on April 24. Then, unilaterally without discussion or negotiation, the Army notified Jasinski that he would receive an “other-than-honorable” discharge that translates to permanent denial of VA benefits for the wounded soldier.

To better put in perspective the humiliation the Army heaped on this PTSD victim, read Jasinski’s personal statement written while in the Bell County jail.

“When I am taken out of jail back to Fort Hood for any appointments I am led around in handcuffs and ankle shackles in front of crowds of soldiers… which is overwhelming on my mind. My guilt from treating prisoners in Iraq sub-human and I did things to them and watched my unit do cruel actions against prisoners, so being humiliated like that forces me to fall into the dark spiral of guilt. I now know what it feels like to have no rights and have people stare and judge based on your shackles and I feel even more like a monster cause I used to do this to Iraqi people. Even worse is the fact that this boils down to the military failing to treat my PTSD but I am being punished for it… I feel as if I am being a threat to others or myself and still the Army mental health professional blow me off just like in 2009 when I felt like I had no choice but to go AWOL, since I received a 5 minute mental evaluation and was stop-lossed despite my PTSD, and was told that they could do nothing for me. The insufficient mental evaluation from a doctor I had never seen before, combined with the insufficient actions by the doctor on 9 April show the Army is not trying to make progress.”

Feel familiar? Neither did you do anything to warrant the banishment from your livelihood. Employers can do anything they want. PTSD victims are not whining delicate “teacups” like attorney Scott Greenfield suggests.

Gary Namie

What you can do:
Read the Dahr Jamail article

Learn about Chuck Luther’s group the Soldier’s Advocacy Group (SAG) of Disposable Warriors

Help the Iraq Veterans Against the War work for the proper and necessary treatment injured soldiers

Thank Eric Jasinski’s civilian attorney, James Branum

Read Joshua Kors groundbreaking report on abusive Army psychologists and psychiatrists

Tell Scott Greenfield his “teacups” smear is a cheap shot by a bullying attorney

Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post caught wind of a disturbing new American business trend. (How many more ways can U.S. businesses stick it to the people?) The people who are unemployed as the result of corporate decisions are now deemed UNACCEPTABLE  and UNWANTED by hiring companies. A recruiting firm disingenuously self-named “The People Place” has announced its policy that “NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS.” Why?  They prefer to poach candidates from the ranks of the happily employed somewhere else.

From its own website, the poorly named, The People Place’s “methodology for sourcing quality talent adheres to rigorous assessments and screenings for all candidates that we present to our clients. This insures that we are not only presenting individuals with qualified resumes, but also profiles that are a match both personally and professionally for the job requirement and the client organization.”

Some unnamed HR troll told Bassett at Huff Post “It’s our preference that they currently be employed. We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed — with the economy being what it is, we’ve had a lot of people contact us that don’t have the skill sets we want … ”

Other companies like Sony Ericsson and unnamed ones that post on Craigslist use phrase ad lines suggesting that the unemployed need not apply.

Wow. They throw you out in the street then shut the door to re-enter their closed world. Are these companies shameless or what?

Before I comment further, I want hear from visitors to this site about this alarming new tactic. What is your reaction?

This event marks the international movement’s 14 years of existence. The group providing direction for the movement is the International Association of Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH). For the worldwide phenomenon that workplace bullying is, the number of individuals intimately involved in studying, preventing and correcting it is a relatively small. But the movement grows. An even larger and more diverse group is expected in 2012 in Copenhagen when the 8th conference convenes.

Here are my brief observations about conference themes and outcomes.

The Science Mounts

141 papers summarizing countless studies and solutions from social and management science academics added to the growing body of literature in the field. There are three primary customer groups that need the information.

First, bullied individuals will benefit. The users of this website’s Research Library know that the newest information can often be personally useful to alleviate the pain. Family members and doubters also can read the studies for themselves to gain validation about the seriousness of bullying’s impact on the target and those who love him or her. We will be adding to the online Library in coming months thanks to the conference.

Second, for the few who mount a lawsuit, scientific findings can be used by your attorney and expert witnesses to bolster your case, countering the employer defense that you lie about your experiences.

Third, lawmakers at the state and federal level need convincing that bullying is a serious public health threat. Out of this conference comes even more evidence that worker health and safety are compromised by bullying. And co-worker witnesses don’t do so well either. Science should trump political nitpicking or scaremongering. But I realize we are in America.

Brit Unions Still Lead

UNISON, the largest UK public employees’ union, conducted a study of bullying within its membership a decade ago and repeated the survey recently. A paper by the union and Prof. Charlotte Rayner found that bullying rates had doubled in that decade. UNISON plans to use the findings to work within the ranks and with partnering employers to curb bullying. I like the union commitment, even though 20% of the bullying is member-on-member. A keynote address by  Rachael Maskell from UNITE, a UK union affiliated with USW in the U.S., was inspiring. Again, there was an unequivocal commitment to eliminating bullying by organizing workers around the topic (an activity AFGE officer emeritus Carol Fehner suggests in our Union section), compelling employers to ensure their duty of care to protect worker health and safety, and being involved in all aspects of bullying in the workplace.  In 2012, I hope there are U.S. union success stories to present.

Euro Legislation Sets the Standard

Of particular relevance to the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) Legislative Campaign were several sessions reviewing laws in Quebec, France, Brazil, and Italy. Prof. David Yamada, author of the U.S. HWB, put our bill into the context of worldwide progress. Remarkably, most applicable laws in other nations are fraught with ambiguity and imprecision. What has changes is the courts’ (judges’) interpretations of them. In France, lower courts have slowly raised the standard for plaintiffs as originally written in the laws. So, the highest court has admonished lower courts and restored employee rights. For this reason and many others, the U.S. still lags far behind by not having any comparable laws. The reports led me to redouble our efforts to enact the HWB here in the U.S.

Americans on Board

David Yamada delivered an informative keynote (download it here) on international laws regarding workplace bullying. I’m proud to have literally joined the Board at the Cardiff conference. My keynote address was completely non-scientific. It was about “Re-Framing the Message” for the necessary America revolution ahead. You can download it here. Make no mistake, we Americans are late-comers to the IAWBH party that began humbly in 1998 in Staffordshire, England.

New Grad Students

The leaders of this movement, like yours truly, are getting long in the tooth. A transfusion is coming thanks to a new generation of graduate students – both young and older people – pursuing doctoral degrees in the field. And no single lab produces more doctorates than the Bergen (Norway) Bullying Research Group, led by Prof. Stale Einarsen. Of the 33 students who attended the pre-conference program for doctoral students,  four were Americans!  They are “in the pipeline” and will make their mark as young academics in U.S. universities, reversing years of biases faced by the pioneering students of years past.  WBI will assist these aspiring American scholars in any way it can. Contact us. Remember, for me to be a “recovering academic,” I had to have been one in the past. I know what you are going through. I can support you.

HR Must Change

The IAWBH conference is not an HR conference. But HR is increasingly asked to join us at the table. Frankly, the empirical findings do not currently paint a positive portrait of HR’s ability to stop bullying. The HR problem may be less a matter of willingness than a lack of internal political clout to effect requisite changes. CEOs would have to trust HR more to allow them to stop bullying. Nevertheless, in the face of lots of criticism of the HR function, a few brave individuals did present research from an HR perspective. Those people, like Gabriele Murry (from Germany) deserve our support because they are truly appalled that bullying is done with impunity. We welcome HR professionals who “get it” and do not blame targets for their fate.

Dr. Gary Namie, WBI, June 7

The Foxconn factory in the southern China city of Shenzhen that manufactures our prized gadgets — iPhones, iPads, Dell, and HP products — is actually a self-contained city of 420,000 workers. In this crazy globalized world, American electronic gizmos are made by a subsidiary (Foxconn) of the Taiwanese firm (Hon Hai precision) that exploits low-wage mainland Chinese labor.

Thirteen Foxconn workers attempted suicide in the last year. Ten succeeded. All young people in their 20′s. There are a couple of stories behind the story that could teach American employers some lessons.

Wages begin at $130 per month, $300 per month with 120 hours overtime and everyone wants the more respectable pay. The jobs are so popular, 8,000 people apply every day to work there. All employers control working conditions. Foxconn, however, in the buyer’s market, doesn’t seem to worry about workers’ needs. Individuals are dispensable since replacements stand visibly by, waiting.

Alienation despite crowding

The typical American workplace analyst, coming from either an HR or corporate defense lawyer perspective, would speculate about personality weaknesses in the young despondent workers as the primary reason for the suicides. I call it misdirection.

Terry Gou, chairman of Hon Hai, reportedly said that managing 800,000 workers is very difficult. He is clueless about why so many of his workers commit suicide. On the surface, Foxconn is a good Chinese employer. It pays overtime and built new dormitories and swimming pools for workers. Similarly, the corporate response to the suicides has been superficial. Safety nets have been installed at the dorms to catch jumpers. Guards patrol the rooftops. And the most outlandish of employer requests was reported by the Sydney Morning Herald — workers have been told to sign letters promising not to kill themselves. Further, workers have to agree to be institutionalized for any observed “abnormal mental or physical state.” There you have it. Suicides are committed only by abnormal people.

Workers crammed side-by-side

However, some reports describe aberrant work and living conditions at Foxconn which are the corporation’s responsibility. A newspaper intern took a job there and found that workers stand for 8 uninterrupted hours at a fast moving assembly line. Each worker checks thousands of gadgets every day. Overtime days are 12 hours long, six days a week. Though workers stand shoulder-to-shoulder, supervisors do not allow them to talk to anyone. Said one 22 year old woman, “I feel like I have an empty life and work like a machine.” Company dormitory living conditions force nine workers into a single “apartment.” Turnover is so high and hours spent in living quarters so short that stable social relationships outside of work are nearly impossible. Dorm life is city life but no one is in a family. The intern’s report characterized the Foxconn employees’ world as “alienated.”

Watch a video of workers describing their work conditions.

Alienation is the antithesis of employee engagement and commitment. Alienation may be at the root of workplace violence and murderous shooting sprees (see the film Murder by Proxy). Suicide is workplace violence turned inward.

Stress expert Robert Sapolsky describes social isolation as a painful, stress-inducing life condition for humans who are biologically programmed to be interactive and social. The denial of human conduct when so many others share your physical space seems an especially cruel practice. Bullied targets know very well how effectively devastating is “icing out” a colleague. Through the processes of social influence and imitation, we use others to define our reality. And the power of conformity demonstrates how willing we are to sacrifice a personal worldview to belong to a group of others.

In another essay at this site, I used the characteristics of torture summarized in Biederman’s chart of coercion to describe how bullying can affect a person. Isolation is one torture tactic. Therefore, alienation, is not to be taken lightly or discounted. It can drive a normal, healthy young person to suicide.

torture link

Lesson One, therefore, is stop designing work in ways that force workers to adjust to speedy, efficient machines. Instead, take into account the human factors involved. Stop blaming victims and branding them as mentally deficient. And stop isolating workers from each other. Allow human contact, if only at breaks (which means do not deprive workers of breaks, either).

When news broke about the suicide epidemic at Foxconn, Apple’s Steve Jobs said the contract with the manufacturer would be reviewed. The news was clearly an embarrassment. The Chinese state-run news agency (Xinhua) and Communist party paper have amplified the suicide stories about a contractor company based in Taiwan, China’s avowed political enemy. It is probably a game of political gotcha without which westerners would probably never have heard about the tragedies.

During the same week as news broke about the ninth Foxconn suicide in Shenzhen, the American business press trumpeted the news that Apple passed Microsoft and became the world’s biggest tech company. That is according to market capitalization which is what investors THINK the company is worth taking into account future earnings and future growth. With that speculative metric, Apple is second only to Exxonh Mobil. Of course, the $241.5 billion market cap is not about revenues or profits. (It’s another Wall Street concoction from the same minds that brought the world the great global recession from the innovation derivatives market.) This “accomplishment” is due to Apple’s “string of hits” such as the popularity of products made in suicide-prone Foxconn factories, according to Wired.

There you have it. Lesson Two. Success scored by speculators juxtaposed with the blood of human sacrifice staining the latest must-have gadgets that Americans line up to purchase. Oh, by the way, Canadians are set to get their iPads.

UPDATE June 7

During the last week, Foxconn agreed to raise employee wages for non-overtime work. They will now be paid approx. $290 per week, near what they could make previously only by working overtime. The two pay raises in one week have outraged investors (according to the BBC business report of June 7) who expect the costs to be passed along to Apple and other customers. Nothing, repeat nothing, should cut into stock dividends to be paid to investors, suicides notwithstanding.

In the streets of Marseilles

French banks announced profitability after the state gave them $26 billion in aid. So, there is an injustice felt, just like in the U.S.

But what does it take to outrage Americans when they are so mistreated by the corporations? Income inequality, corporate dominance over workers’ rights, trivialization of abuse, turning worker against worker — it’s all here. We have to open our eyes.

  USA Today report

Can you even imagine Americans taking to the streets? Well maybe now that Idol and Dancing with the Stars are over!

The NY Senate passed S 1823B on May 12. Since then, there has been a flurry of opposition in the media, all by corporate apologists and chicken-little lawyers. Just to set the record straight.  WBI addresses the distortions with links to the original articles.

Here are the articles in reverse chronological order.

June 1: Bipartisan consensus at last: N.Y. Senate passes bill for bully-free workplaces

May 29: A legal blogger who calls bullied workers delicate teacups

May 28: Another lawyer – mediator who thinks no law is needed because employers do the right thing.

May 26: A columnist writing for small businesses about the impact of the bill

May 24: An article claiming NY businesses will flee the state to escape the risks of having to curb abusive management practices

May 19: Repeat of the lame “job killer” (Chamber of Commerce) label for our bill designed to ensure dignity at work for all

May 14: The first post-vote salvo from the Wall St. Journal, citing Mayor Bloomberg’s opposition

If you count yourself a supporter of our legislation, please write a supportive comment on the newspapers’ websites. There are a lot of crazies writing opposing notes, spreading lies. Thank you.  Gary Namie

WBI counters the distortions

In the Greenfield (Simple Justice) blog: Equating bullied targets, many who suffer PTSD, with delicate teacups is assinine. Greenfield is a media-seeking lawyer, say no more. My longer response to his insensitivity can be found in the comments linked to the article at his blog. Why not re-name his blog, Justice for Simple Minds. For thoughtful legal mindfulness, visit Minding the Workplace, a blog penned by WBI’s favorite law professor.

WBI counters the distortions

In the Pynchon (Forbes) article: She is right that IIED (emotional distress) claims should work for bullied targets, but the reality is that courts consider no level of misconduct by anyone at work in the U.S. as “outrageous” as required by the current law. Suffolk Law Professor David Yamada covered the inadequacies and the shortcomings of US courts in his seminal Georgetown Law Journal article in 2000. Anyone can download his writings by visiting this site. Her second point is that employers can and should handle this. We agree. Truth is, they don’t. Pynchon, the mediator, believes employers naturally do the right and rational thing. She’s not heard of ingratiation, though she does fashion herself as an amateur social psychologist. Serving corporate masters can blind a person to reality. Finally, she doesn’t really comprehend severe bullying. It is violence and violence is not subject to mediation!

Who’s afraid of the big, bad boss?

A significant number of U.S. workers say they are— and soon those in New York may be able to sue their employers, including small businesses, for any suffering they experience at the hands of a toxic boss or other workplace bully.

Earlier this month, the Empire State’s Senate passed a bipartisan measure that would allow workers who’ve been physically, psychologically or economically abused while on the job to file charges against their employers in civil court. The bill applies to organizations of all sizes, unlike other employee-friendly laws that exempt small businesses, such as the federal government’s Family and Medical Leave Act. It also holds employers responsible for the bullying of workers by colleagues and not just supervisors.

In addition to New York, 16 other states have introduced legislation in recent years aimed at curbing workplace bullying, but none have become law. New York’s passage by the state’s Senate is considered significant because the issue is generally deemed a liberal cause; the state’s Senate is made up of a slight Democratic majority and one of the bill’s two leading sponsors is Republican. The bill next moves to a vote by the labor committee of the state’s Democratic-majority Assembly at a to-be-determined date.

Business owners nationwide should take note, as a chain reaction is likely to ensue if the measure becomes law, says Jennifer Rubin, a partner in the employment-law practice at New York law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. “It’s only a matter of time before this trends to other states,” she says. “It’s politically popular.”

New York’s anti-bullying bill defines bullying broadly and includes the repeated use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets, as well as conduct that a “reasonable person” would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating.

Mathew Tully, founding partner of Tully Rinckey PLLC in Albany, N.Y., says he’s concerned that his 77-employee law firm could get sued as a result of the bill because it operates within a high-pressure environment. “Generally, our employees are acting in a professional manner, but every so often there may be a burst of anger,” he says.

On the flip side, Mr. Tully figures that his firm would likely see an increase in demand for its legal services if the bill were to become law, as he’s already heard from more than a dozen clients seeking advice on how to avoid litigation. “It’s going to drum up a lot of business for us,” he says. “This is almost guaranteed to flood the courts.”

Road Science LLC, a Tulsa, Okla., technology company with 110 workers, pledges in its employee handbook to maintain a “jerk-free” culture. Anti-bullying bills were proposed—but never passed—in Oklahoma in 2004, 2007 and 2009. Frank Panzer, Road Science’s chief executive, says he opposes such legislation because it could prompt false claims from workers. “The danger is you create a victim mentality,” he says. “Just because you’re being disciplined doesn’t mean someone’s bullying you. A lot of (managers) are just very forthright. If they feel it, they say it. They don’t have much tact.”

According to New York lawmakers, between 16% and 21% of employees have experienced health-endangering workplace bullying, abuse and harassment, and such behavior is four times more prevalent than sexual harassment.

The problem is just as common in small businesses as large ones, says Wayne A. Hochwarter, a management professor at Florida State University’s College of Business, who surveyed 980 workers in March and April on the topic. One third of respondents said they work for companies with about 100 employees or less, and of those, 23.5% reported experiencing supervisor bullying on a weekly basis, compared with 21.3% of the other two-thirds of respondents who said they work for larger organizations.

To be sure, New York’s anti-bullying legislation says that employers may not be held liable if they take steps to prevent or promptly correct abusive behavior. Small-business owners should therefore be sure to have a policy that prohibits bullying by both supervisors and colleagues, says Rick Gibbs, a senior human-resources specialist for Administaff Inc., a Kingwood, Texas, human-resources-outsourcing firm. Owners should also create ways for employees to notify them about instances of abuse, such as by installing an anonymous hotline.

Of course, it can also be helpful to try and avoid hiring workers who might be perceived as bullies in the first place. Suzanne Miller, owner of SPM Communications LP, a public-relations company in Dallas with 18 employees, says she asks candidates about their experiences working with others to get a sense of whether they might have abusive tendencies. “If you take the time to get to know a person and what motivates them in business and in life, you’re going to find that you choose the right people,” she says.

Ms. Miller says she’s glad the New York legislation recognizes bullying as unhealthy. Part of what motivated her to become an entrepreneur in 1999 was a prior three-year stint working for a toxic boss. “She would scream at me before she would check the facts,” says Ms. Miller of her former employer. “I felt belittled for no apparent reason.”

Business owners should also consider the possibility that they might actually be bullies. One telltale sign: A high turnover rate, says Gary Namie, co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, an employee-rights group in Bellingham, Wash. “You’re creating a place that reasonable people don’t want to stay in,” he says. “You’ve probably focused on whatever it is you make or sell and don’t have an incentive to get management skills.”

Another indicator of a bully business owner is if he or she takes all the credit for their company’s success, says Vicky Oliver, author of “Bad Bosses, Crazy Coworkers & Other Office Idiots.” “If everything is your idea,” she says, “it’s probably because you’re bullying the people who work for you into submission.”

See original article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268701579722946.html

Click here to listen: http://www.workplacebullying.org/media/audio.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lateral Hostility

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

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

Horizontal Hostility

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

Culture as a Liability

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

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

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

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

Culture as an Asset

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

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

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

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

Rosenstein’s Study

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

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

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

Rowe and Sherlock’s Study

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

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

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

Yildirim, Yildirim, and Timucin’s Study

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jcpainter@cox.net

Late one afternoon last September, a 23-year-old former assistant programmer at a large Internet company was called into her boss’ office and presented with an offer she couldn’t refuse: Two full title jumps with new job duties that would mean a larger role, more autonomy and more creativity. “I jumped at the offer,” she says.

The young woman kept her old job responsibilities while adding to her plate the tasks of the new title as well as a high-profile project.

But by early December she was sidelined with yet another offer she couldn’t refuse: Her boss “highly recommended” she take a buyout package from the company. It was widely known that workers who were offered a buyout but didn’t take it would likely be fired in the coming quarter.

Eight Signs You Have A Cheating Boss

“I was utterly caught off guard,” she says. While her boss had explained that the new job might not be “as important in the future,” the young woman’s old job had been dissolving from underneath her, with various coworkers taking responsibilities off her plate at her boss’ request.

Adding insult to injury, a contract worker she had personally trained had been offered a full-time position: “My old title, if not my exact old job.”

“I should have realized that my boss didn’t care [about me] anymore,” she says. “That she’d given up on me. I’d just been so busy juggling all the balls thrown at me to notice.”

How does a person go from a high-voltage position to career atrophy? Call it the cheating boss syndrome.

A cheating boss goes beyond the characteristics of a bully boss. The bully boss is hostile and threatening, yells or gives you the silent treatment and is verbally abusive and humiliating. By contrast, “A cheating boss is more insidious,” explains Nicole Williams, author of Girl On Top. “It’s more undermining.” Bullying is in-your-face, but cheating occurs behind someone’s back.

In other words, says Williams, “You can’t even defend yourself.”

Is It Cheating When … ?

If the cheating analogy sounds like a romantic relationship, that’s because there are similarities between a marriage or long-term couple and a boss and a worker. In most romantic relationships the most obvious definition of infidelity is sex with another person. But there are other, more gray areas, such as emotional infidelity. At work, cheating comes in the form of a broken psychological contract.

Although it’s not normally the stuff of employee handbooks, the rules between a boss and a worker boil down to: “Try to be truthful, try to care and to have their back, not just to the letter but to the spirit,” explains Ben Dattner, Ph.D., of Dattner Consulting, a workplace psychologist and author of the upcoming book Credit and Blame At Work.

And the psychological contract can differ, depending on the corporate culture. “In a bean-counting, individual-performance-based organization, my contract [as a boss] is I will monitor your output and count your widgets,” says Corinne Bendersky, Ph.D., a professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. “In return the employees know that if they are given the same resources as everyone else, they will be rewarded similarly.” Cheating, then, occurs “not if the boss treats me like a jerk, but if you don’t pay me what I think I deserve.”

In a bureaucratic or corporate environment, Bendersky continues, workers expect that if they follow the rules, decisions will be made in an unbiased, transparent fashion. Here, a boss who strays is generally unfair and unavailable, engages in favoritism or nepotism or deliberately misleads or withholds information.

In a more teamwork-oriented organization, employees expect their overall performance will be judged and prized in part by how well they fit in and are team players. The psychological contract frays each time a boss mistreats an employee interpersonally, such as divulging confidences, bad-mouthing, making empty promises or exploiting vulnerabilities.

What it comes down to, says Bendersky, is “not giving people their just deserts.”

The Power Dynamic

In the end cheating boils down to one thing: power. “Often, all [cheating bosses] know is subterfuge and deception,” says Gary Namie, Ph.D., director of the Workplace Bully Institute in Bellingham, Wash. “It’s about accomplishing personal goals, regardless of the company or organizational goals.”

One 45-year-old former director of marketing at a large high-tech company (who did not want her name used) says her new boss would often quote Machiavelli: “I’m going to surround myself with yes people, my own people.”

Given the new power dynamic in the office, it wasn’t much of a surprise when the boss replaced 50% of the marketing department and skimped on paying the marketing director a promised bonus. “She wanted to get her own people in her camp. I felt cheated.”

The 23-year-old assistant programmer echoes the sentiment: “Is the reason I no longer work there because my boss just moved on from me to the sound of someone new sucking up to her? Someone who was, in all rights, much more grateful for being hired than I was for being given so much extra work?”

To Confront or Not?

Just as in romantic relationships, there’s a short-term upside and a long-tail downside to bosses straying. “There’s a very strong loss of trust on the part of your team, reduced commitment to the job and lower productivity and higher turnover,” says Bendersky. “As a boss, when you lose employees at a faster rate than the rest of the company, it reflects badly.” Interviewing, hiring and training replacements–it isn’t cheap to cheat.

But in the end, it’s a lopsided affair. As Dattner explains, the employee is the one facing a fundamental fork in the road. “Do you confront or not?” he asks. “Be very careful about correcting your boss’ version of reality.”

So what can a wronged employee do? “It’s pretty hard for an employee to say, ‘You cheated,’” says Bendersky. “You can try to withhold work, transfer to a different department or, if you believe it’s safe and anonymous, file a formal grievance. But you have to have strong documentation.”

It’s also a good idea to build a strong network within the workplace. “People who are surrounded by strong social networks are less likely to be singled out,” says Michelle Duffy, Ph.D., of the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. “It’s like middle school.”

Before you speak out, however, understand that in some instances you may not have the full picture. For example, says Dattner, if the boss didn’t bring up your raise as promised, it might be because it wasn’t the most opportune time and have nothing to do with your work or his or her feelings toward you as an employee.

That said, “There are some situations that are so egregious that you need to be prepared to lose–or leave–your job,” says Dattner. Which brings up a whole other point to consider, one that every jilted woman already knows: You can’t control his bad behavior, but you can control your own. If things get really bad, you can always leave.

See original article: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/25/boss-cheating-trust-forbes-woman-leadership-work.html

Watch Chuck speak at his Universalist Church about the social costs associated with discarding human beings as cogs machine in what the mainstream media politely calls “the economy.”

WBI counters the distortions

In the Erikson (Post) article: Our NY State Coordinator Mike Schlicht has it right about how many New Yorkers are bullied (relying on the national prevalence rate), but Nobile, the corporate attorney, implies that all 1.8 million will file a lawsuit. This is nonsense. Sexual harassment is illegal, but only a miniscule proportion (about 1% who suffer it) ever file a lawsuit. The hurdle for filing a suit under the Healthy Workplace Bill is high. Frivolous complaints will be filed only by the hopping mad, super wealthy workers. Do you know any? The second ungrounded opinion comes from the Business Council rep, Moran, who threatens that businesses would flee NY if employers are not allowed to abuse workers with impunity. Large employers already export jobs in search of cheap labor for no reasons related to their employees except that they are American and entitled to (a disgracefully low) minimum wage. Companies are in NY for a reason — education at great universities, skilled workers, family ties to the region, they are American. Bill S 1823B does not change those reasons. We have the same bill proposed in MA, NJ, VT and soon every state that borders NY. Where are they going to go? Americans also comprise the labor pool in those states. And NJ is more pro-worker than NY!

WBI counters the distortions

In the McMahon and Copland (Daily News) article: The “job killer” label is pure fear. Employers are job killers given the massive layoffs during the great recession. Bullies are job and career killers for the individuals they target. Bullies chase away the best and brightest who threaten them and the employer suffers from the talent drain. Professor David Yamada, author of the bill, gives a more comprehensive argument that our bill is “an equal opportunity job saver.” The authors of the Daily News article argue that everyone fired will have grounds to sue. Read the bill. Employers are protected when economic necessity, illegal or unethical conduct are grounds for uncontestable termination. Lazy opinion writers do their readers no favor.

After years of studying the ill effects of workplace stress, psychologists are turning their attention to its causes. Along with the usual suspects — long hours, bad bosses, office bullies — they have identified some surprising ones.

Read the article at the NY Times site.

WBI counters the distortions

In the Schneiderman (WSJ) article: Copland tells it how it is in large law firms and on the stock trading floor “People are yelling, people are cursing, this is what happens.” OK, let’s accept that. Read the bill. It requires that for conduct to be abusive, it must be malicious and demonstrably health-harming. Some, but few, who work in such an environment will be harmed by the craziness. No harm, no complaint. But the 99.999999% of us who don’t work in such rarified places should not have to tolerate the conduct when it should not be a routine part of the culture. Mayor Bloomberg and writer Copland see the bill as a boondoggle for attorneys. On the plaintiffs’ side, most of the bullied workers will have lost their jobs, and with it lost the ability to mount a privately funded lawsuit against their wealthier (and insured) employers. It will still be David v. Goliath. And Goliath carries employment practices liability insurance that protects them from cash outlays for mounting an employment-related legal defense.

Specifically, this legislation provides legal redress for employees who have been harmed psychologically, physically or economically by being deliberately subjected to abusive work environments; and it provides legal incentives for employers to prevent and respond to mistreatment of employees at work. This is the Workplace Bullying Institute Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) that has been introduced in 16 other states. It was authored by Suffolk Law Professor David Yamada. The grassroots group NY Healthy Workplace Advocates has been the local catalyst for the many bills introduced in New York state since 2007.

“The social and economic well-being of the State is dependent upon healthy, safe, and productive employees,” said Senator Morahan.  “I want to thank all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who voted for this legislation today.  In particular, Senator George Onorato, Chairman of the Labor Committee, Republican Leader Dean Skelos, Majority Conference Leader John Sampson and Deputy Majority Leader Jeff Klein for helping secure passage of the legislation.”

“I became aware of the prevalence of abusive environments in the workplace when one of my constituents brought her situation at her place of employment to my attention.  It became apparent that legislation was needed to address the problem,” said Morahan.

“Workplace bullying, abuse and harassment bring with them a variety of very serious human and economic costs,” said Senator George Onorato, Chairman of the Labor Committee and co-prime sponsor of the legislation. “Abusive behavior can cause grievous harm to employees who are the victims of it, leading to all manner of health problems and, often, forcing them to leave their jobs to escape it.  In addition, it costs employers in terms of lost employee productivity, and other workplace problems.  By taking aim at abusive work environments, this legislation will protect employees from inappropriate behavior and help our businesses to become more productive and successful.” The bill passed Onorato’s committee on March 12, 2010.

“Mistreatment of employees in the workplace is a serious issue, but too often, workers have no recourse when they are subject to an abusive work environment,” said Senate Republican Leader Dean G. Skelos. “Senator Morahan’s legislation will help employees who have been harmed, physically, mentally or financially, and will encourage employers to do more to prevent and respond to this problem.”

“We are truly appreciative of Senator Morahan’s efforts which have culminated in the passage of vital legislation today in the New York State Senate,” said  New York Healthy Workplace Advocate State Coordinators Mike Schlicht and Tom Witt.

“On behalf of the workforce of our State, I call on my Legislative colleagues in the Assembly to pass this bill in their house,” said Senator Morahan.

“This is only the second state in the nation to have passed the HWB on a floor vote. Now it is up to the outgoing Chair of the Assembly Labor Committee, Susan John, who is not running for re-election, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to guide the bill to a successful Assembly vote,” said Gary Namie, WBI Director.  “Thanks to NYHWA, the bill has 48 Assembly co-sponsors. With a positive vote by June 21, the bill could be on the Governor’s desk and become the first law in the U.S. of its kind”

Anyone who supports the passage of the HWB into law, please follow instructions at the NY State page of the HWB website.

Back on March 18, the MA State House passed a version of the bill 148-0 in the aftermath of reports that Irish transplanted high school student Prince was still being mocked long after her death on social media sites by the same teens that had tormented and taunted her right up to her last day of life. A key factor in the South Hadley High story about Prince was that she allegedly reported her fear of being beaten by Flannery Mullins to a school administrator, according to court documents. Mullins, one of six students was subsequently arrested before he was suspended from school. Remarkably, the school superintendent, Gus Sayer, denied any knowledge of her plight prior to a week before her January suicide. This is the same superintendent who had parents demanding accountability removed by police during a televised March school board meeting. Remember that the school superintendent is the CEO of the school district and manages the site administrators, the principals.

The Massachusetts legislature, which ignored the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill SB699 after a committee hearing in 2010, sprang into action belatedly on behalf of students with another unanimous vote, in the Senate, 38-0. Headlines cause reactionary votes.

By April 29, differing House and Senate versions of the bill were reconciled and the bill was sent to the Governor to become law on April 3.  The bill goes into effect during the 2011-12 school year.

The final bill is S2404 and you can read it in its entirety here. The heart of adult responsibility to act and not be passive do-nothing bystanders to student-on-student violence can be found in lines 123-135 of the text. All adult staff have to receive professional development training on recognizing bullying and ways to intervene. The law requires staff to report it to the principal or the school’s designated person. The principal must immediately investigate (no guidelines given).  The principal may, in turn, determine if the acts are criminal and if so, can call law enforcement. Everyone is to be notified — bullied student, accused bully, parents of all involved students.

The law pertains to both public AND private schools in the state.

In the new law, bullying is defined as the “repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof, directed at a victim that: (i) causes physical or emotional harm to the victim or damage to the victim’s property; (ii) places the victim in reasonable fear of harm to himself or of damage to his property; (iii) creates a hostile environment at school for the victim; (iv) infringes on the rights of the victim at school; or (v) materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school … shall include cyber-bullying.”

For an enlightened view of how adult bullying affects student safety, read Dr. Spencer’s essay written exclusively for WBI — Stealing From Children.

The bill is not a feel-good bill for everyone. Proponents say it will allow physically abusive bullies to be held accountable. Opposition stems mainly from attorneys who warn the law may not pass constitutional muster. For example, many times parents of accused BULLIES have won lawsuits against school districts because their little bundle of joy is entitled to her or his freedom of speech.

This flies in the face of common sense in a world where the BULLIED are persecuted even worse when they expose the suffering endured at the hands of the unfettered expression of bullies’ speech. Where is the freedom to call for relief from persecution? Not only is this speech not protected, it leads to serious harm.

I had the occasion to hear Pepperdine University Law Professor Bernie James speak at a school bullying conference. His review of several court cases revealed that most state anti-bullying laws for kids do little to protect the bullied in that school districts are NEVER held accountable. So, just having a law is insufficient when the law is weak. Injustice is compounded when the BULLIES are given more rights by courts.

The law against workplace bullying (psychological harassment) in the province of Quebec is weak. A friend of ours who worked very hard for its enactment acknowledges the lack of employer sanctions in the law, but believes that at least the government there once upon a time declared that citizens deserve to work free of abuse.

That sentiment may be the best we can hope for from the Massachusetts law. It would be an improvement to have the law hold the district superintendents responsible for preventing and correcting bullying among students. That way, the CEO’s job depends on it.

Of course, the ideal solution would address the bullying among adults in schools where apparently the only focus is on the students.

Only two school districts have directly addressed the adult-adult problem. They have implemented the WBI/Work Doctor Blueprint to Prevent Workplace Bullying. They are Sioux City, Iowa and Desert Sands in La Quinta, California.

Retired auto dealer joins Healthy Workplace Bill movement

STEUBENVILLE – It’s not as long a journey from automobile dealer to citizen advocate if one is committed to a cause. The switch in John Smurda’s life came as a result of reading a book and considering what he’s seen in his own family over the years. Smurda, a city resident, is now a volunteer citizen advocate for Ohio to pass a bill offering legal remedies to targets of workplace bullying.

HEALTHY WORKPLACE EFFORT — John Smurda discusses his work as an advocate for the Healthy Workplace bill in Ohio. The Steubenville resident is a retired businessman who said he became involved in the effort for new laws to protect against workplace bullying after reading a book by one of the national leaders of the effort, Dr. Gary Namie. -- Paul Giannamore

Smurda said he read a book by Dr. Gary Namie, who, with his wife, Dr. Ruth Namie, has written “The Bully at Work.”
The Namies are professional educators – he with a doctorate in social psychology and she with a doctorate in clinical psychology. Ruth Namie experienced bullying in the workplace firsthand in the mid-1990s. She and her husband founded the Workplace Bullying Institute in the late 1990s as the Work Doctor website, now found as www.workplacebullying.org.

They have led efforts across the nation to have states enact anti-bullying measures to protect people who aren’t covered by the usual sexual harassment or anti-harassment policies and laws.

Smurda said he’s seen the effects of workplace bullying twice within his own family. He said he was fortunate never to have had to deal with the issue when he was one of the principals of the former J & J auto dealership in Toronto, which closed in late 2008.

“We had 25 employees,” he said. “They were a big family. It was the greatest group you could ever hope for. We all cared for other people. And that’s why this knocks me out.”

Smurda said he got in touch with the Namies and was asked to become an advocate for an anti-bullying Healthy Workplace bill in Ohio. So far, according to the healthyworkplacebill.org website, 17 states have introduced such bills since 2003. Smurda said hopes are that Ohio will be the 18th. No state has passed such a bill.

“Current laws do not apply when a person fails to fall into one of the protected classes,” he said.

Federal anti-discrimination and harassment policies focus on preventing harassment that is based on race, sex, religion or national origin, but offers no legal remedies when harassment is not based on those characteristics.

It’s also not about physical violence, which is prohibited by laws. Smurda said that’s where a healthy workplace bill helps.

“It’s the same in every situation. The bullies take aim at their targets. The bullies believe the world revolves around them and have a way of manipulating others into helping them,” he said. Smurda said the treatment involves blame for errors, criticism of ability and insults. It can be evidenced in slamming doors or exclusionary treatment in the workplace.

Businesses have policies against such treatment, but Smurda said targets often don’t want to report they’re being bullied because of fear of reprisal or job loss. Co-workers don’t get involved, he said, because they fear being shunned or becoming targets themselves. A Healthy Workplace bill isn’t about outlawing people who are merely jerks with bad behavior. For claims to be brought, the target has to prove actual health or psychological impact resulting from the maltreatment from a boss or co-worker.

The Healthy Workplace movement includes protections for employers. Smurda said he wouldn’t be involved in placing greater burdens on business as a businessman himself. “It protects the employer and punishes the bully,” he said.

Targets in every case that would find legal remedies under the law have become ill as a result of the bullying, experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder or anxiety. Targets leave their jobs or some commit suicide.
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned the Zogby polling organization, through a gift by the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention to survey Americans on workplace bullying.

The findings of the online survey of 7,740 adults, released in 2007, find 37 percent of workers say they have been bullied. Most bullies are bosses and about 60 percent of the bullies are men with 57 percent of the targets being women. The survey also found 71 percent of the female bullies target other women and 54 percent of male bullies target men.
Bullying is four times more prevalent than illegal discriminatory harassment, the survey found.

The survey found that, when employers are made aware of bullying that does not fall into the illegal discrimination category, some 62 percent did nothing. Some 18 percent of the respondents said the employer actually made the situation worse for the target.

Respondents said verbal abuse and threatening, intimidation, humiliation and hostility were most often the tactics, with abuse of authority and interference with work also prevalent.

The Workplace Bullying Institute did a non-scientific update with 422 respondents in 2009 in response to claims in the business press that employers were weeding out bullies as part of cuts made to respond to the recession. That survey found 31.3 percent of the bullying targets who responded lost their jobs by layoff, termination or quitting, while another 12.3 percent were off because of psychological injuries. In most cases, the employer had done nothing after learning of the bullying.

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

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

New Berlin plaintiffs’ attorney Shannon D. McDonald frequently gets calls from people who claim to be victims of an abusive work environment.

But unless the “bullying” is tied to sexual harassment, age or gender discrimination, the employment law attorney generally has to deliver bad news. “In most instances I say, ‘Given the laws, there is nothing I can do for you,’” said McDonald, of Carroll & McDonald LLC.
That could change if Wisconsin becomes the first state to pass a law allowing employees to file suit in circuit court against an employer for workplace bullying.

Currently, workers’ compensation is typically the exclusive remedy for an employee with a claim against an employer. But Assembly Bill 894 provides that an employee can sue over an abusive work environment and potentially recover medical expenses, back pay, front pay, compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages and attorney fees.

Since 2003, 17 states have introduced similar proposals, but none have passed, according to the office of Rep. Kelda Roys, a sponsor of the Wisconsin legislation.

Mixed response

Plaintiffs’ lawyers view the proposal as closing a loophole in the law.
“It’s a way to make employers accountable and to provide a legal remedy for those employees who would otherwise have no remedy at law or legal recourse,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Theresa R. Gabriel. The Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP lawyer called the legislation a “gap filler” for those employees who do not fall into a protected category. “A lot of bullies are sophisticated and know not to invoke certain trigger words” that would suggest their bullying is driven by sexual or racial biases,” she noted.

But Waukesha defense attorney Joel S. Aziere suggested the law would make employers targets for litigation. He questioned the rationale of allowing employees to bring an action in circuit court, rather than going through an administrative process, which is the standard for other employment discrimination claims.

“It helps to have some agency facilitate claims and get responses from people,”  he said. “This seems like it will just open the floodgates to cases being brought against employers.” While the law prohibits an employee from recovering damages through both a workers’ compensation claim and a lawsuit — the plaintiff must choose one or the other — Aziere said there is still the possibility for some overlap.

For example, in a constructive discharge case, an employer might have to fight allegations on multiple fronts if an employee files a claim with the Equal Rights Division (ERD), but also brings a lawsuit in state court claiming workplace abuse.

The plaintiff could not “double-dip” on damages, but the employer would have to defend both the administrative claim over the discharge and the lawsuit over the atmosphere at work. “Now, we have an exclusive remedy for workers’ compensation claims,” Aziere said. “This bill creates multiple avenues and battling on multiple fronts.”

Defense attorneys also conjecture that the proposal could offer a back door method for obtaining discovery in ERD claims. “There is no discovery at the administrative level, [but] employees would now be able to use the court action to do discovery for the administrative action,” argued Aziere, of Buelow Vetter Buikema Olson & Vliet LLC.

The proposed legislation requires that suit be filed within one year “after the last act constituting the unlawful employment practice occurred,” but it does not limit how far back a plaintiff can then look.

Currently, an individual seeking to file an administrative claim with the ERD must do so within 300 days of the incident in question or the claim is barred. Aziere said that the new law would be problematic because “it invites claimants to sit on claims, let them accrue and then fire off lawsuits against an employer.”

Wisconsin Defense Counsel President Catherine M. Rottier agreed that the law could encourage “spite suits” from employees who may be unhappy, but not necessarily victims of workplace abuse.

She and Aziere noted that many businesses already have internal policies which prohibit general workplace abuse of those individuals who are not part of a protected class.

“This just adds a layer of angst to the workplace,” said Rottier, of Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field LLP.

Read the original article

Feel free to send your thoughts along to Joel Azeire: jaziere@buelowvetter.com ; Catherine Rottier:  crottier@boardmanlawfirm.com  ;   Theresa R. Gabriel ;  Shannon D. McDonald

Monica Walker is the state coordinator for the Healthy Workplace Bill, which would require employers in Wisconsin to create and enforce anti-bullying policies. Walker said fighting abuse in the workplace became her mission after she herself suffered bullying at work.

Meet the WI Healthy Workplace Advocates State Coordinator, Monica Walker. “bully fighter” from Mazomanie, WI. In 2010, she championed AB 894 sponsored by Rep. Kelda Roys. You, too can become a Coordinator. Visit the Healthy Workplace Bill Legislative Campaign website, see if your state has a Coordinator. If so, sign up to help her or him. If not, read what it takes and speak with Dr. Namie. Join the elite network of volunteer Coordinators changing the legal landscape of America on behalf of workers exposed unnecessarily to health-harming, abusive mistreatment (workplace bullying).

Read the original article in the Wisconsin State Journal, April 17 by Dee J. Hall

You can track progress of the Wisconsin Healthy Workplace Bill at our Legislative Campaign website.

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

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

Watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s treatment of it

TARPON SPRINGS — If, as authorities charge, Arunya Rouch shot a colleague to death March 30 at the Tarpon Springs (Florida) Publix (grocery store), she represents a rare class of criminal: women who kill in the workplace.

Rouch would be part of an “infinitesimal” group of women who have killed people in workplace disputes, said Carter Hay, an associate professor of criminology at Florida State University.

Only 5 percent of workplace homicides are committed by women, said Larry Barton, the author of four books on crisis management and violence at work who teaches at the FBI Academy.

“We have fewer women who cross that line because they are willing to tolerate it (a perceived negative work environment) more,” Barton said. “When a woman crosses a line and takes a weapon and uses it, it’s a very significant event in the study of workplace violence because we just do not see a lot of it.”

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston who has studied workplace violence extensively, said women generally turn to violence “if all else fails.” Men, on the other hand, see violence as an offensive weapon “to show who’s boss, to take charge,” Fox said.

And that, in part, has to do with gender differences in coping with stress, Hay said.

Women tend to internalize strain, which can result in depression or harming themselves. Men are more likely to externalize their responses to stress, which can include aggression against other people, Hay said.

Fox said women are less likely to attach their identity to their employment and are often better at balancing work, family and social obligations.

“If a guy loses his job, he often feels like he’s lost everything,” Fox said. “Women don’t view their self-worth through their employment. They can, but it’s much less common.”

Rouch does not precisely conform to the gender stereotype. She has no children and was heavily involved with her job, where she was known as an unrelenting perfectionist. Rouch was a trainer called upon by Publix management to open seafood departments in new stores.

She arrived at the Publix in Tarpon Springs about three years ago. Within months, Rouch began complaining that co-workers were taunting her about her meticulous approach to the job, according to her friends and family. She was told to “go back and get into her hole” and called “anal.” One of those co-workers, they said, was Gregory Janowski, 40, whom Rouch is accused of killing. His family vehemently denies that he taunted or bullied Rouch.

“It’s not that they (victims of such abuse) snap,” said Gary Namie, a social psychologist and co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “It’s the slow constant exposure to the stress, humiliation, forms of intimidation that could drive a person to take action.”

On March 27, Janowski reported Rouch for violating Publix’s policy of working at the store before punching in. She in turn threatened him. Janowski reported the threat, according to authorities.

Rouch was fired three days later. Around noon that same day, authorities say, Rouch shot and killed Janowski as he sat in his car in the parking lot. Still armed, she entered the store, where she was shot and wounded by a Tarpon Springs police detective. She remains hospitalized at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg.

Family and friends said Rouch, 41, loved her job. “She would cook up food and bring it to co-workers for lunch,” said Kenneth Rouch, her father-in-law. He said she takes great pride in her work and her family. He links the shooting to her love of both.

“It’s the craziest thing,” Kenneth Rouch said. “But I believe she didn’t want to disgrace the family.”

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of workplace homicides decreased by a little more than half from 1994, when there were 1,080, to 2008, when there were 517. That’s because the vast majority are committed during other crimes, such as robbery, and the overall violent crime rate has decreased.

Workplace bullying, on the other hand, is neither rare nor declining.

More than a third of the U.S. work force report being bullied on the job, according to a 2007 survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute and Zogby International. Another 12 percent say they’ve witnessed it.

While research into workplace bullying is fairly new, experts draw a direct parallel between bullying and workplace violence.

“People don’t have an escape route any more,” said Namie, the co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “With the job market, they stay in miserable situations for health insurance.”

Only a handful of women have made national news in the slaying of co-workers or supervisors.

Most recently, a female professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville was charged with killing three people and wounding three in an on-campus shooting rampage in February. Amy Bishop had recently been denied tenure. After the shooting, colleagues reported that Bishop had long exhibited strange behavior.

Nearly all of the other women involved in high-profile homicides had a history of mental illness. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Rouch.

In January 2006, a former employee of a U.S. Postal Service mail-sorting plant in Goleta, Calif., opened fire on her former colleagues, killing six before turning the gun on herself. Jennifer San Marco had been granted early retirement because of psychological problems.

In April 1997, two nursing home administrators in Louis­ville, Ky., were shot to death by Kimberly Harris, a former employee who reportedly had a history of mental illness. She was sentenced to life in prison.

Times researchers Shirl Kennedy and Carolyn Edds contributed to this report.

Read the original article

On Feb. 3, 2008,  Jodie Zebell took her own life … A Spanish teacher testified she was “iced out and isolated” for four years by older colleagues in her school district. Once a marathon runner, she now suffers from clinical depression, chest pain, panic attacks and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Deborah Lemke told lawmakers of an unnamed Wisconsin hospital where the nursing supervisor verbally bullied nurses on his staff. When she intervened on behalf of the nurses, she herself became a target.

Amid emotional testimony, bill targets workplace bullying

In 2008, 31-year-old Jodie Zebell appeared to have a full life. The UW-Madison graduate was married with two young children and a part-time job as a mammographer at a La Crosse clinic, where she was praised as a model employee.

Jodie Zebell, 31, took her own life in 2008 after months of workplace bullying, her aunt told an Assembly committee Wednesday. Zebell's family is backing a bill that would outlaw workplace harassment in Wisconsin. Photo courtesy of the Jodie Zebell family

But soon afterward, Zebell became the target of co-workers who unfairly blamed her for problems at work. After she was promoted, the bullying intensified, her aunt Joie Bostwick recalled during a legislative hearing Wednesday attended by members of her niece’s family, including Zebell’s mother, Jean Jones of Spring Hill, Fla.

After her niece had a run-in with her supervisor, Bostwick said, the boss joined in the harassment, filling Zebell’s personnel file with baseless complaints about her performance and loudly criticizing her in front of others.

“This went on for a series of months,” said Bostwick, a Blue Mounds native who now lives in Naples, Fla. “It just got worse and worse.”

On Feb. 3, 2008, the day before she was to receive a poor job review, Jodie Zebell took her own life. A Madison attorney told the family it had no legal recourse since she wasn’t protected from workplace discrimination as would be an older worker or a racial, ethnic or religious minority.

“We were astounded to find there was nothing we could do. There were no laws unless you were part of a protected class,” Bostwick said.

The tragedy sparked Zebell’s family to join the national movement seeking to ban bullying from workplaces and give victims — who prefer to call themselves “targets” — tools to stop the harassment or sue abusive employers and bullies in court.

Abusive conduct

On Wednesday, the Assembly Labor Committee heard 90 minutes of often emotional testimony on a bill sponsored by state Rep. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, that would require employers to implement and enforce anti-bullying policies — or face their abused employees in court.

Seventeen states are considering such legislation, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute of Bellingham, Wash., whose director, Gary Namie, also testified at the hearing.

Under the proposal, workers who believe they have been harmed by “abusive conduct” could sue to force the employer to stop the bullying, to seek reinstatement or to get compensation for lost wages, medical costs, attorneys’ fees, emotional distress and punitive damages.

The bill defines abusive conduct as “repeated infliction of verbal abuse, verbal or physical conduct that is threatening, intimidating or humiliating, sabotage or undermining of an employee’s work performance or exploitation of an employee’s known psychological or physical vulnerability.”

Vaguely worded bill

Representatives of business groups told the committee the bill is too vaguely worded and would invite frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled and incompetent workers.

“AB 894 paints a target on the back of small employers … (who) can’t afford to fight claims in circuit courts,” said Pete Hanson, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Restaurant Association.

Andrew Cook of the Wisconsin Civil Justice Council, a consortium of large business groups, agreed. Cook said if Wisconsin becomes the first state to pass such a bill, it would harm the state’s ability to attract business.

Emotional stories

But at the hearing, such concerns were largely overshadowed by these stories:

· A Spanish teacher testified she was “iced out and isolated” for four years by older colleagues in her school district. Once a marathon runner, Susan Stiede now suffers from clinical depression, chest pain, panic attacks and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She quit teaching in 2009.

· A nervous state employee told of being harassed by a unnamed female boss in a state agency that she declined to name. Intimidated by her knowledge of the agency, the new supervisor circulated untrue rumors about her, and banished her to an office with no phone and separated her from her co-workers. When she took a six-month stress leave, the supervisor started bullying other members of the staff, she said.

· Dr. Deborah Lemke told lawmakers of an unnamed Wisconsin hospital where the nursing supervisor verbally bullied nurses on his staff. When she intervened on behalf of the nurses, Lemke said, holding back tears, she herself became a target.

Corliss Olson, associate professor at the UW-Extension’s School for Workers, said the bill is “desperately” needed.
Olson said most targets of bullying are “normal, competent people” who can be driven to disability or even death.

“This is a viciousness in the workplace that we need to stop,” Olson said. “We can and we must change our workplaces so they are civil.”

Read the original article. Track progress of the Wisconsin bill AB 894 at the Legislative Campaign website.

Belated press attention to a January 2010 student suicide is based on the special cruelty teens employed after the girl’s death. What does this say about us and our society? A Gary Namie podcast.

Download Podcast 15 (in .mp3 format) or Subscribe to the Podcasts.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

Most schools have policies that target bullying, but they are usually aimed at students. Now, school districts in Iowa and California are developing rules to prevent teachers from bullying teachers.  …

The Sioux City, Iowa, community school district approved its policy last April. Desert Sands Unified School District of La Quinta, Calif., is awaiting final passage later this month. The two school districts are believed to be the only ones nationwide developing anti-bullying policies for their adult employees, said Gary Namie, who with his wife, Ruth Namie, founded the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash.

Read the original article

WBI:  ERRORS in the article

1) the policies we write with school districts apply to all adults (administrators, certificated and classified staff) and adults to students, not just teacher-on-teacher.

2) the fee for the project included 5 days of on-site training, including the creation and training for an internal team of expert peers, not just policy writing.

3) the Namies never claimed to be psychologists (states notoriously prohibit this designation even when one earns a doctorate in psychology). It is the reporter’s conclusion.

4) the headline is wrong by omitting so much information

Other than these four problems, the article is perfect!  Journalism students, take note.

“The workplace bully in America’s schools is a taker…a robber…a thief. The bully steals the dignity, self-esteem, confidence, joy, happiness, and quality of life of the targeted victim. But when the target is a teacher, a great injustice occurs because the bully robs the students of what they want, need, and deserve…. A great tragedy occurs everyday in America’s schools as thousands of children are robbed by the workplace bully of the RIGHT to be nurtured and taught by such honorable, caring, outstanding educators.”

Through the years, I have personally identified a small number of what I refer to as “pillar entities” that, in my view, exist to preserve and perpetuate what is good and right and best in our society.  I put government, education, religion, healthcare, and a few others in this category.  When the devastating malady of workplace bullying is found to exist within these entities, and flourishes in some cases, the magnitude of the impact is multiplied exponentially.  One would think that such altruistic institutions that attract devoted, service oriented people would be immune from such devastating elements.  But unfortunately, they are not as “one bad apple” is hired now and then.  When workplace bullying occurs in these institutions, not only is the employee seriously impacted, but as the quality of service provided by the target diminishes due to bullying, the detrimental effect is transferred onto the lives of people these institutions serve.

For much of my career in education, I have been a human resource professional.  For more than 25 years, I have been directly responsible as a Principal, Director, Assistant Superintendent, and Superintendent of Schools for hiring staff members to work at various sites or departments in the school districts where I served. I have always approached my work in selecting individuals for employment based on a philosophical perspective that developed from actual conversations I had years ago with students and parents.

I noted the answer they gave to the one question asked: “Describe the school you wish to attend (or for the parent, the school you want your child to attend) as if it was a person.  Fill in the blank….”I want my school (or my child’s school) to be a place that is ______________.”  The collective voice of these students and parents was the desire for the school to be a place that provided an outstanding education in a caring, loving, accepting, nurturing, and encouraging environment.  The parents and students wanted the school to be a place where the staff did not judge or limit students on what problems or issues they may have now….where they come from, their home situation, their socioeconomic status, etc.  Rather, the staff to be able to see beyond today and into the future…what the student could be…and did everything possible to help the student get there!

The collective voice of those students and parents became the foundation for my personal philosophy that has guided my work as a human resource professional ever since.  In the interview phase of any selection process, I have made it a practice to never ask a question of candidates about what they know and what they can do (the knowledge, skills, and competencies essential for success in the job) before I probe into their personality and character.  I know from experience that the greatest school employees are the ones who not only have outstanding skills in their area of expertise, but also have the essential foundation of what I refer to as the “heart and character of an educator.”

If in the first phase of the interview it is found that the candidate’s character, personality, heart, and other essential qualities match the criteria mentioned above, then he/she continues in the process to determine the level of knowledge, skills, and competencies they possess.  When I find someone with both components…quality character and outstanding skills, I hire them!  In my view of the grand scheme of things, I know that if each and every person we hire in our school district is caring, loving, accepting, nurturing, and encouraging, over the course of time the school and the school district will become that way too.

In education, what happens in the classroom between the teacher and student is where “the rubber meets the road.”   So, let me begin to narrow this down to make a point about the impact of workplace bullying on the loss of productivity in schools.   Let’s talk about what happens when a school hires an outstanding teacher who becomes the victim of a workplace bully.

As I shared, I know that students (1) want a teacher who is caring, loving, accepting, nurturing, encouraging, etc…and (2) has the essential knowledge and skills so crucial to being an effective teacher.  When I find such teachers, I know I have found wonderful, capable professionals who can’t wait to come to work each day and give every ounce of their passion, care, talents, and skills to their students…what the students want, need and deserve from their teacher.  You can envision how it unfolds as the school year begins.  Within the first few days of school, the students quickly realize they are blessed with a teacher who is not only an outstanding teacher, but one who truly loves and cares about them…wants the very best for them…sees beyond today and envisions a bright future for each and every one of the students.  The students and teacher look forward to class, they are never late or absent because they don’t want to miss an opportunity to gather together, share, learn, and grow.

These great teachers are they the ones that students throughout the years have voiced and written great expressions of thanks and appreciation for the impact made on their lives.  You, I would be hopeful, have been impacted by at least one such teacher in your life.  Even today, many years later, when you think their name and recall the memories of those learning experiences, a smile comes to your face and your heart warms.

And if a teacher who touched your life in this manner walked through the door of your home or office today, even though you may not have seen them in years, you would warmly greet them, embrace them, and unreservedly ask if there is anything you could do for them.  Why?  From the day you first met, you knew in your heart that this teacher loved you, cared for you, and devoted themselves to being there every day to give you their best so you could realize your goals, your potential, and your dreams.

Each year, outstanding teachers such as these are hired for service in schools all across America.  They can’t wait to get to work in their classroom at their new school and begin the process I described above…loving and caring for their students and giving them an outstanding educational experience everyday!

But it’s only a matter of time when to many of these teachers finds themselves in the crosshairs of a bully; a predator that roams the halls of their school looking for a victim.  The bully could be an administrator, a fellow teacher, a custodian, or anyone in the organization.  But the bully has selected a teacher as a target and begins the devastating assault on this unsuspecting servant of the common good.  Day after day the bully selects the tactic, the place and the time to unload on the undeserving target in the hallways, offices, and workrooms of the school.  Incapable of stopping the assault, the barrage on the target continues and the predictable effects of workplace bullying begin to be revealed and take their toll.  The loss of sleep, nausea before coming to work, anxiety, hypersensitivity, depression and other symptoms systematically set in.

The schoolhouse which was once a place of honorable service has now become a chamber of horrors.  Before the bullying began, this teacher would be there every day, eager to share the learning experiences custom-crafted to meet the student’s needs.  But to avoid the unbearable suffering that will be inflicted by the bully, the teacher exhibits avoidance behavior and does not report to work.  All available sick, vacation, and personal time is used.  And as the days, weeks, and months go by, the once high-quality educational classroom experiences enjoyed by well-deserving students given by an eager, caring, loving teacher slowly and significantly erode.

The quality learning experiences the students once enjoyed degrade into mediocrity and ineffectiveness.  As is tragically the case in 64% of the time, this once outstanding teacher, now a remnant of his/her former self is forced into resignation, quits, or is fired.   Perhaps like so many others who have been bullied at work, this educational professional never teaches again.

The workplace bully in America’s schools is a taker…a robber…a thief.  The bully steals the dignity, self-esteem, confidence, joy, happiness, and quality of life of the targeted victim.  As a workplace bully victim, I fully and completely understand the pain and suffering one endures.   But when the target is a teacher, a great injustice occurs because the bully robs the students of what they want, need, and deserve…a teacher who loves them, cares for them…who comes to work everyday and gives all that he/she has so that these wonderful, deserving children receive an outstanding education…the foundation of becoming whatever they want and dream to be!   A great tragedy occurs everyday in America’s schools as thousands of children are robbed by the workplace bully of the RIGHT to be nurtured and taught by such honorable, caring, outstanding educators.

Educators are constantly looking to identify problems and issues that inhibit the delivery of a high-quality education to our students. From my perspective, the workplace bullying phenomenon in America’s schools is something we can and must do something about.  Boards of Education, working in partnership with the Administration and staff, can and must take a stance against this growing workplace malady that is eroding the quality of education in America.

The workplace bullies in America’s schools must be stopped from continually robbing our students of the high-quality of education they deserve.

Matt Spencer, Ed.D.
Director of Classified Personnel
Desert Sands Unified School District
La Quinta, California

Read the article and be sure to answer her question at the end. We have written extensively about it here. And that’s our famous WBI-Zogby survey quoted in the article.

“As I saw her approaching, my stomach would be full of dread that there was going to be a confrontation,” says Kennedy. “It was always intimidating.”

The job was her first out of design school. And while she was excited about creating window treatments and selecting furniture for upscale homes, Kennedy soon found herself persistently bullied by her colleague. “She focused on me and made my first year a living hell,” Kennedy recalls.

THE FEMALE BULLY
Beware the bully in heels. A U.S. survey found that 40 percent of workplace heavies are women — surprising, given our allegedly maternal natures — and that they tend to pick on their XX-chromosome colleagues. In fact, women are the most common targets of bullies of either gender, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute, based in Bellingham, Washington, which led the 2007 study. And while there aren’t any national statistics about bullying on the job in Canada, the experts say it’s prevalent here, too. Quebec, a leader in addressing the issue, receives around 2,000 complaints a year at its labour commission from non-union employees alone.

What’s more, research has found that the damage caused by bullying can be more severe than that of other, more high-profile cubicle troubles. A Canadian study determined that victims of bullying were more stressed and withdrawn, and less satisfied with their jobs, than those of sexual harassment.

“It’s one of the most important health problems in the workplace today,” confirms Angelo Soares, who teaches organizational behaviour at the Université du Québec à Montréal and has listened to nurses and engineers alike recount traumatic tales. “Bullying can happen anywhere. No one’s safe.”

WHAT’S BULLYING?
Workplace bullying is defined as deliberate and focused mistreatment of an employee. Quebec, the first jurisdiction in North America to specifically protect against this type of psychological harassment, describes it as repeated, vexatious behaviour that erodes a worker’s dignity. Tactics range from the loud — yelling, door slamming and ranting — to the subtle: A bullied employee might find herself excluded from important meetings or assigned tasks without adequate resources to complete them. Her co-workers could be recruited in a campaign to isolate her. And behind her back, the bully may trash her to higher-ups, although bosses themselves are often the culprits.

In his research, Soares has seen victims of a slew of behaviours that even his first-year management students recognize as inappropriate: a supermarket cashier who received letters from a supervisor every few days detailing minor infractions — an unironed uniform, shoes not conforming to code, arriving two minutes late; a secretary whose computer was “losing files,” who eventually learned it wasn’t a virus but a colleague deleting them after hours; and a hospital-pharmacy worker whose boss tried to control her day so much that even her bathroom breaks were monitored.

WHO’S THE TARGET?
The employee under attack is often a competent, committed one, singled out for her strengths, not her weaknesses. And she’s often on her own, says Gary Namie, the research director for the Workplace Bullying Institute. “Even though it’s a form of violence — psychological violence — it’s still seen as the victim’s fault.”

Experts also note that the gender — of the bully or target — doesn’t determine whether this happens or to whom; rather, bullying typically occurs in an organization with poor leadership. “There is an element of bullying that’s simply predator-prey,” says Diane Rodgers, project coordinator for BullyFreeBC, a lobby and education group. “And when people are allowed to behave badly, you do have the Lord of the Flies factor that takes over.”

HOW DOES IT HURT?
High blood pressure, clinical depression, diabetes, even post-traumatic-stress disorder can befall a bullied employee. While working at a public-relations firm on the West Coast, Laura Adams* developed shingles. Her boss’s hallmark behaviour included storming out of meetings, throwing news releases in subordinates’ faces and shouting at her staff: “What’s wrong with you? Why can’t you think?” After only four months, Adams could no longer cope with the bullying — she had to quit.

As with many employees subjected to this mistreatment, Adams’s confidence also suffered a hit. “Before I quit, I had to convince myself that it wasn’t me; it was her,” says Adams. “But even to this day, I still have self-doubt.”

The disruptive behaviour under fluorescent lights also goes beyond the personal: It hurts colleagues, hampers productivity and costs the health-care system. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, a federal agency, reports that bullying cultivates an unhealthy environment, which increases absenteeism and turnover and decreases motivation and morale among employees.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Start by keeping a record of what’s happening, then seek out help and support wherever you can, whether it’s through your union, your doctor or a lawyer, says Rodgers. But she warns that you could encounter resistance: “Be aware that all of this can be framed to make you look neurotic, paranoid and unstable.”

In Canada, protection against workplace bullying depends on where you earn your paycheque. Quebec, Saskatchewan and the federal government have specific legislation to protect bullied employees. Ontario just passed a similar law, which will take effect in June. And if the bullying is linked to issues such as gender, race or disability, you can make a case under human-rights law.

But for many working Canadians, the only option — beyond quitting or being fired, the most common outcomes, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute — is a potentially costly and time-consuming battle in court. Initially, there wasn’t even a legal recourse, points out Christine Thomlinson, an employment lawyer in Toronto. But in the past decade, there have been a number of high-profile victories for bullied employees, built around constructive dismissal or personal injury, including a $950,000 settlement in 2006 for a female officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Whatever your decision, says Rodgers, take the steps necessary to protect your health, financial security and reputation — and be willing to walk away from your job. “If you try to hang on, if you care too much about the work you do and the career you’ve built, then you may be putting other, more important things at serious risk.”

LIFE LESSONS
For Kennedy, the Ottawa interior designer, there was a happy ending. After a year revamping homes and assisting other designers, she felt confident enough to stand up to her tormentor. And she took a deep breath and reported the bully’s actions to the company’s owner. The bully was reprimanded and, when things didn’t change, she was fired three months later. “

It was a great life lesson for me,” says Kennedy, who went on to redesign official residences in the capital and is now based in Calgary. “As I continued my career and eventually opened my own design firm, I knew to watch the interactions among my staff to ensure that I never had a bully working for me.”

*Name has been changed.

Allegations against the PM have brought this issue into sharp focus. Gabrielle Fagan investigates just how prevalent it is in the British workplace. Read the article in the Halifax Evening Courier.

The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) launched the U.S. workplace bullying movement in mid-1997. Starting in 2001, WBI principals began lobbying for legislation as amateurs. The work has grown into a national network of volunteer Coordinators in 29 states with varying levels of advocacy experience. WBI directs the citizen lobbyists to unify the message. WBI provides Coordinators with training, materials and the text of the HWB.

Suffolk University Law Professor David Yamada authored the HWB for WBI in order to provide employees with an avenue for redress when health-harming abusive conduct is not addressed by Civil Rights laws. Additionally, the bill does not mandate employer action or government involvement. It does reward good employers with freedom from vicarious liability when they take proactive steps to correct and prevent severe bullying behavior. The only employers who should fear the law are the ones that rely upon abusive tactics to manage.

Though 16 states have introduced several versions of the HWB since the first California bill in 2003, no state yet has passed the bill into law.

A new book accuses British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of throwing temper tantrums. What do you do when the boss is a bully?

He’d punch walls and angrily stab chairs with pens. Frequently, he’d yell at his staff, once pulling a secretary out of her chair for typing too slowly.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has a volcanic temper, according to a new book, The End of the Party, in which political journalist Andrew Rawnsley describes a series of tirades during Mr. Brown’s second and third terms in office.

The book was excerpted in Sunday’s Observer, the same day Christine Pratt, the head of the National Bullying Helpline, revealed that Mr. Brown’s staff had called her service .

In the Prime Minister’s defence, Secretary of State for Business Peter Mandelson told the BBC that Mr. Brown is a leader who “gets angry, but chiefly with himself.” Downing Street staff have described a leader who is simply passionate about his work.

The allegations have stirred experts in the growing workplace-bullying industry, and some say “passion” is the cop-out du jour for intimidating bosses.

“Passion can justify any over-the-top emotion. The message is that everyone else should learn to live with it. That’s what it’s like in a bullying environment: Everyone walks on egg shells, but all cater to the Grand Poobah,” said Gary Namie, founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute.

Dr. Namie, who works with WAVES, a human resources company that deals with workplace bullying (for Canadian employers), describes the behaviour as “health-harming mistreatment” and “psychological violence.”

According to a 2007 study by the institute of 7,740 Americans, 37 per cent had been bullied at work, and 39 per cent of bully targets suffered clinical depression. Bullies are often bosses: 72 per cent, the study said. Forty per cent of those are women who target other women; men appear to split their bullying evenly between the sexes.

It seems the man has a temper,” said Gerard Seijts, professor of a leadership course at Richard Ivey School of Business in London, Ont. Prof. Seijts said hotheads can get far in leadership because no one stands up to them. “Often times, it requires a lot of courage for people around a leader to speak up. … But every time we don’t correct people on their behaviour, we raise the bar for our moral outrage. If we treat this as acceptable, what becomes unacceptable? Maybe slowly, [Mr. Brown's] behaviour became unacceptable.”

Dr. Namie noted that human resources staff can only go so far to resolve the conflict. “Bullying is not an HR problem. It’s an executive-team, administrative, leadership problem, and unless and until they want it to stop, it’s not going to. HR hears all the complaints but they don’t have the power to create a new policy and to enforce it.”

Dr. Namie said the biggest mistake that bullying targets make is to let “the bully sink the claws in” the first time around.
“The bully is testing the water. The failure to confront that is what convinces the bully you’re an easy mark. Unfortunately, what makes a target a target is they didn’t see it coming. They’re constantly surprised.”

Asher Adelman said one way to avoid bosses with volcanic tempers is pre-emptively. “It’s very rare for a workplace to improve its culture. Usually, when things go bad, they only get worse. For the most part, aggressive, abusive managers don’t change their behaviour,” said Mr. Adelman, founder of eBossWatch.com, which lets job seekers troll a database of anonymous posts about bad bosses.

The site has rated the top worst bosses for 2009, including a water distribution superintendent who held a four-hour, profanity-laced meeting and instructed employees to hit each other, a football head coach who broke another coach’s jaw during training camp, and an airline CEO who screamed at his employees in front of hundreds of customers lined up at the airline’s check-in counter, ignoring a sign that warned passengers: “Abusive behaviour towards staff will not be tolerated.”

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

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

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

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

Myth 1:  Bullying behavior is not prevalent.

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

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

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

Myth 4:  Bullies are worth keeping around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference Notes:

[1] The Joint Commission Teleconference on Disruptive Behavior Among Health Care Professionals, Wednesday, July 9, 2008.  Available online:

http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/CE6FE184-1088-4C89-BA21-2522E886B754/0/DisruptiveBehaviorConf7908.pdf.

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

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

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

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

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

As a follower of the workplace bullying phenomenon, you are invited to join the new IAWBH organization. Tell your friends. Begun at the biannual conference held in Montreal in 2008 (described at this site), this group which was primarily limited to academic researchers in the early years is now reaching out to a broader constituency — clinicians, practitioners, non-academics.

The next conference is June 2-4, 2010 in Cardiff, Wales. WBI will be represented with Dr. Gary Namie and Prof. David Yamada delivering keynote addresses and presenting papers.

When she was 21, she ended an argument with her younger brother with a fatal shotgun blast. She was not charged. Then, in 1993 when she was a researcher she feared a negative evaluation of her dissertation (which she had just submitted) by her supervisor, Paul Rosenberg. Mysteriously that supervisor received a pipe bomb in the mail shortly thereafter. She was questioned and then cleared by the ATF. Her current husband, with whom she has four children, was present in her life during the prior incidents.

She had been denied tenure and had repeatedly complained about it at department meetings prior to Feb. 12. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Dr. Setzer, the chemistry department chair, said he had heard from biology department colleagues in biology that there were concerns about her personality.  In meetings, Setzer remembered, she would go off on “bizarre” rambles about topics not related to tasks at hand—”left-field kind of stuff.”

According to Boston Globe reporters, she was a freaky neighbor with a low tolerance of noise and children who frequently called the police on her neighbors.

Conclusion: as in most workplace homicides, it’s not the bullied targets who do the shooting, it’s an aggressive person with too little impulse control and access to weapons. An armed bully is a dangerous person.

Startling to non-academics is that a Harvard PhD biologist is capable of murder or being subjected to a work environment that may have driven her to think her only option was to kill colleagues. Where one goes to school has nothing to do with her costly decision. However, we shouldn’t be surprised according to the North American expert on faculty abuse is Ken Westhues at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Visit his well-documented site for insights.

Professors are among the most egocentric groups around. Highly funded research faculty (the kind who rarely teach lowly undergrads) can be campus superstars. Professors who are excellent teachers experience second-class status except in community colleges. Department chairs (the first-line supervisors in the managerial hierarchy) typically couldn’t manage a shift at McDonalds. They either allow interpersonal problems to fester without relief or supervise with a command-and-control style because they lack skill to do otherwise.

Short tutorial on the three levels of professorhood. Entry-level, Assistant Prof (usually straight out of graduate school) for 4-6 years, subject to publish or perish pressure. Associate Prof is a person granted tenure by their department peers, based on their performance record, though also very prone to political sabotage and trickery by insecure peers who can control a disliked peer’s economic future. Tenure = Hard to fire, job security status.  Professor is the title earned by Full professors that at about 10-12 years into their careers. It connotes senior status.

The  majority of teaching positions in the academe are part-time, without benefits, and not earning seniority toward tenure: teaching associate/assistant (the grad student teacher), instructor, adjunct professor, lecturer, visiting professor.

The shooter was 44 years old. Why was she still an assistant professor (PhD in 1993, hired at University of Alabama, Huntsville in 2003) after 7 years? Her archived faculty bio page does not state her graduation year. She was an inventor of devices. She and her husband ran a business that involved devices. She might have felt that begging for tenure was beneath her, that based on her external experience as well as her science, she was entitled to tenure. But the sparse list of recent publications in peer-reviewed journals seems a likely basis for tenure denial.

Too few details are clear. Stay tuned for an update. It’s an educated guess that there was a series of insults or disgraces prior to the horrific day.

For an insightful academic’s insider view, visit Prof. David Yamada’s blog

Check news coverage:  WHNT-TV,  WAAY-TV

Imagine that. A sane single parent not wanting to deploy. What an upside down world when seen through a mother’s eyes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo (c) Robin Holland

Academic historian, author, activist & playwright Howard Zinn died on Jan. 27, 2010 of a heart attack. His work inspired us WBI citizen lobbyists with his 2007 essay “Are We Politicians or Citizens?” Said he, “We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth.”

Howard Zinn (1922-2010) was an academic and veteran of the military not afraid to stand against war, for peace. For daring to speak peace, he was considered too “left.” As historian, he wrote the history of the U.S. from the perspective of oppressed groups and the requisite struggles for social justice. Too much for the disenfranchised, the underdogs, thus too “left.” In “The People Speak” which aired on the History Channel, actors read quotes from historical figures reclaiming democracy for America based on Zinn’s work. Too uppity and diverse and in-the-face of the rich and powerful, thus too “left.” A critic of nativism, blind patriotism and symbols when the nation’s actions and practices render patriotism hypocrical. Way too “left” by threatening to expose American exceptionalism and arrogance.

He will be missed. Here are some tributes. Democracy Now.  Videos about how he wanted to be remembered. And was insulted with NPR’s inclusion of an ad hominim attack of him during his obituary segment. Remembered by his former student Marian Wright Edelman as a man who “taught us to be neither victims nor passive observers of unjust treatment but active and proud claimants of our American birthright.”

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

Hare draws the analogy between people and corporations.

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

Read his essay on the topic.

1. The employer can do whatever it wants! Contract? Fuggedaboutit.

2. “Executive” is a meaningless marketing term — useful only for bathrooms, ranks of chefs in a restaurant’s kitchen, office furniture, and overpriced upgraded junk (SkyMall crap) misleading consumers to think they are getting something better for their money. Truth be told they rarely came up from the ranks by knowing the business. And they remain remarkably out of touch with those who work for the corporation. NBC exec Jeff Zucker runs the network that is watched by the fewest viewers. He runs an unsuccessful business by his industry’s own best measures.

3. Employers routinely lie to, and betray, employees. Jeff Zucker made Conan wait 5 years dangling the promise of hosting the Tonight Show when Leno left as an incentive for Conan to be “loyal” to the network. Then, he repays the loyalty with termination after 7 months. So much for integrity.

4. Employers who trash workers risk sabotage. Few of us can get even as Conan did in a very public way — on the air.



A postal worker, Ray Miehlke, contacted LSJ columnist Schneider with reports of a “reign of intimidation at the U.S. Postal Service’s Collins Road facility,” and a complaint of a physical assault by his supervisor which was found to have “no merit” by USPS spokesman Jim Mruk. To explain his willingness to speak up while others are intimidated into silence with threats of retaliation, Miehlke said “I’ve lived my life not putting up with bullies.”

Abusive workplaces are not rare at the Post Office. See the following articles posted here:

Another USPS Tragedy The 2010 Murder by Proxy documentary An arbitration where the Post Office defended the bully supervisor claiming the Violence policy does not apply

The Feb. 4 Schneider article:
Postal worker’s bullying allegations draw attention
February 4, 2010
Lansing State Journal

In a recent e-mail to me, electronic technician Steven Ray Miehlke described a reign of intimidation at the U.S. Postal Service’s Collins Road facility.
“We work … in fear,” Miehlke wrote. ” … Threats, verbal abuse and physical assault are everyday occurrence in the work place. These things are … accepted (and) encouraged.” Miehlke, who lives in Mason, cited several supervisory “bullies” at the facility who “attack women employees most often.”
In a subsequent interview, Miehlke, a 15-year veteran of Collins Road, said an angry supervisor struck him with an elbow and pinned him against a conveyor line Jan 22. Miehlke filed a formal complaint, and was instructed to send his statement, along with a list of witnesses, to postal inspectors in Detroit. He did so.
Proper channels
Responding to my questions this week, Postal Service spokesman Jim Mruk said my inquiry had been “forwarded to human resources, the inspection service and the office of the inspector general, who will investigate the matter.”
Mruk responded to my follow-up inquiry by directing me to inspector Andre Brown, in Detroit. Ultimately it was inspector Wylie Christopher who said he couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation, adding, “Something is being done.”
But late Wednesday Mruk phoned me back to say the investigation on the Jan. 22 incident – as well as an earlier incident – was complete and inspectors found “no merit” to Miehlke’s claims. “There was no assault,” Mruk said.
Earlier, Mruk said: “There are two sides to every story. Anytime we receive information that there is a problem in the work place, it’s taken seriously. We’re confident the matter will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken.
Miehlke said the supervisor he named in his complaint had been transferred from Collins Road immediately following my inquiry. Mruk called it “purely coincidental.”
No word
Mruk agreed to relay my request for an interview to that supervisor, but I didn’t hear from him Wednesday. Absent that interview, I won’t name him here.
In his e-mail Miehlke wrote: “Officially, there is a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards even the mildest forms of intimidation. We have been told, ‘Threats or other types of verbal abuse will not be tolerated. Anyone interfering with you as you work will be removed from the building. Intimidation and bullying will be dealt with harshly. Any physical contact will be considered an assault.’
“Unless the bully is a supervisor.”
Miehlke said he doubted his fellow employees would speak up on the record, for obvious reasons. My attempts to interview two of them confirmed his assumption. So, why is Miehlke willing to speak out?
“I’ve lived my life not putting up with bullies,” he said.
Call John Schneider at (517) 377-1175, send a fax to 377-1298 or e-mail jschneid@lsj.com.

“We want to relate to each other and to our families as good, moral, just people who do the right thing and then we go out to the corporate culture and it’s this horrible dog-eat-dog, greed, anything-goes culture.” Victor Fresco, show creator

“Delivers a potent mix of shocking truth, honest analysis and dark humor”
COMING TO THEATERS IN 2010

Feature documentary Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal offers a provocative examination of the possible role of hostile work environments in mass murder incidents, starting with the earliest USPS mass murder-suicide in 1986.

At a time when tensions are rising again in the Postal Service and in other workplaces across America, Murder By Proxy is a simply a must-see film.

Spread the word, forward the link to this announcement to your friends

· Conference Board survey: U.S. worker satisfaction at 45% new 20 yr. low

· Dec. 2009, U.S. employers shed 85,000 more jobs – 17.3% of Americans are unemployed, underemployed or discouraged

· 37% of U.S. workers are bullied and in 2009, 28% said the abuse worsened with the recession

· Number of suicides by those who lost their identities and life purpose when their economic status was reduced to rubble — unknown, but surely rising.

All the happy talk about an economic recovery (for the publicly funded mega-banks) is balderdash in light of the reality for working people. Let’s drop the Dow Jones number obsession and start measuring what counts in real people’s lives. Until there’s an active social movement, the politicians will continue to cater to corporations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2010 Cheryl Ward

The holidays are supposed to be about peace and goodwill, Dr. Namie comments on how society may be changing its support of bullies.

Download Podcast 14 (in .mp3 format) or Subscribe to the Podcasts.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

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

Download Podcast 13 (in .mp3 format) or Subscribe to the Podcasts.

Listen in our Audio Section

Bullied targets tell us all the time that they seek justice. In fact, the most frustrating aspect of bullying of adults by adults is the injustice. it is unjust that bullies enjoy the backing of executives & owners. it is unjust that the best performing, albeit  least politically oriented, workers are designated for harm. It is unjust that few laws or policies address bullying. Injustice (a much lesser form than bullying) has been shown to increase the risk of coronary heart disease by 40% (read C2 article in the WBI Research Library)

This violation of fairness disgusts targets and affected family members. But justice rarely comes from lawsuits, judges and courts. One California woman did prevail, however, against a state agency in court. She worked in law enforcement and absorbed the full force of the agency and the state attorney general’s office when she fought back. Listen to her account of that experience. Listen to her wisdom about the process so that you know what to expect if you ever contemplate filing a lawsuit.

Listen to Rebecca H, a plaintiff against the state of California, who shares painful lessons from filing a lawsuit and actually winning in court.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

(Note: This is updating a previous post to a podcast.)

We started the Legislative Campaign to enact the anti-bullying bill in states in 2001. In 2010, we will add to the count the 17th state to introduce some version of the bill thanks to the grassroots network of HWB Coordinators in 27 states and 2  provinces. The new website becomes the single source of info about the legislation for lawmakers, potential sponsors, citizen lobbyist volunteers. and media. Visit

The Healthy Workplace Bill website.

The Drs. Namie, Workplace Bullying Institute

Listen to the show segment at the WBI website or the CBC website.

Alexis & Karmani Hutchinson, Credit: AP

She sent the son to her mother back home in Oakland, CA. However, the grandmother, could not provide the needed care and returned the child because she cares for her ailing mother and sister, as well as a daughter with special needs, and also runs a day-care center at her home, keeping about 14 children during the day. Hutchinson then scrambled to find another relative or acquaintance to care for the child. She skipped the Nov. 15 plane sending her unit to Afghanistan after that extension was rescinded.

Major  Gallagher of her unit (3rd Combat Aviation Brigade of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division) imprisoned Hutchinson instead. The unenlightened Gallagher and First Sergeant Gephart of her unit both believe that Hutchinson’s plight was not a real family crisis. They accuse her of using her son as an excuse to avoid deployment. Her son was taken from her by state child protective services. The mom faces a court martial in Afghanistan. There was also some coverage by the Associated Press.

10.7% of Army members are single parents.  Family Care Plans were formally required effective July 1992. Read the regulation.

The Army was an employer that reneged on the promise of a time extension. Next time you hear about the Army being family friendly, think again. And remember, these are the “Hooah” gang that deliberately blames PTSD victims for their psychological injury from waging war on behalf of the officers and desk jockeys in the Pentagon, Congress and White House.

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

INTRODUCTORY RATE of $50 (US) per hour.

When I was offered a job as a junior network television executive at age 26, I was beyond excited. I’d get to be creative, meet talented sitcom writers, and best of all, work for a woman I idolized. Amanda,* a TV veteran who worked on some great shows, seemed intimidating from afar—drop-dead gorgeous and extremely successful—but in our interview, she was warm and funny, listened carefully to my ideas, and complimented me on everything from my intellect to my earrings. I showed up my first day thinking, “This will be the Best. Job. Ever.”

Instead, I drove home every night in tears. Amanda stole my ideas, sabotaged my relationships with writers, and “forgot” to tell me about meetings. It was like high school all over again. How could this be happening in a respected company run by professionals?  ….  Finish reading the original article at the magazine’s site

Read more about woman-on-woman bullying.

Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week was a chance to break though the shame and silence surrounding bullying. It was a national call to action. Anyone can participate in the way they seem fit. Here are some examples of ways people celebrated.

“I composed an unemotional, professional letter to our Board of Directors and sent it.”

“I put up a poster in my local career center. “

“I put a poster in the HR office, and published an article in our company’s newsletter.”

“I posted awareness messages on my facebook and myspace accounts about Freedom Week. I also posted it on my anti-bully blog.”

“I wrote a letter to our local chamber of commerce.”

One college professor led a discussion on the topic of workplace bullying.

Many people reported having conversations with loved ones or co-workers. Many others posted posters around their home town.

Thank you to all who participated.
If you are interested in doing more for Freedom From Bullies Week next year please let us know.

A Better Response to Mini-Holocausts
Bullying has been described as mini-holocausts because people are destroyed while others stand idly by. There is an alternative. A lesson from history where a nation responded to the actual Holocaust.

Download Podcast 12 (in .mp3 format) or Subscribe to the Podcasts.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

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

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

Listen to two of his speeches at our Audio library.

- Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers

- Stress and Coping: What Baboons Can Teach Us

Purchase his Zebras book.

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

Elizabeth Blackburn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an illustrative study led by another of Blackburn’s former graduate students, Elissa Eppel (article C3 from the WBI Research library), mothers were categorized as either “caregiving mothers” or “control mothers” based on whether or not they raised a chronically ill child or a healthy child and self-ratings of stress in their lives. Age affects telomere length. They are shorter as we age naturally.  Telomere length was the key measure of the impact of stress in this study. Sophisticated analyses of blood samples yielded telomere lengths and telomerase levels.

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

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

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

Read the Eppel, Blackburn et al. study with an attached announcement from the Nobel award committee.

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

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

G. Namie

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

Carrie Clark, podcaster

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to the Podcasts.

WBI Podcasts are also in iTunes. Please rate the podcast there. Thanks.

Sponsored by the American Psychological Association/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health /Society for Occupational Health PsychologySan Juan, Puerto Rico | The Conference Program | The Conference Website

WBI participation

Symposium: Case Studies in Workplace Bullying – Just Scratching the Surface of Costs and Consequences.  Saturday Nov. 7:  11:30-12:45.  Presenters: Gary/Ruth Namie, Kathy Rospenda, Joel Neuman, Suzy Fox, David Yamada

Roundtable: Workplace Bullying: From Research to Activism. Sunday Nov. 8: 9:45-11.   Presenters: Suzy Fox, Lamont Stallworth, David Yamada, Gary/Ruth Namie, Joel Neuman

Paper: Bullied Workers Shunned in U.S. Workplaces.  Sunday Nov. 8: 2:45-3:45. Presenters: Gary/Ruth Namie

You can read the research works by these WBI-affiliated scholars in the WBI Research section for friends.

Researchers Nathanael Fast of the University of Southern California and Serena Chen of the University of California, Berkeley, found in a series of studies that it is actually the combination of power and incompetence that can result in bad boss behavior. The paper will be published in the November issue of the journal Psychological Science.

 [FYI, the paper is also described in our article and can be requested from the WBI Research list - A7. ]

“It’s not just power that corrupts people and it’s not just incompetence either,” said Fast, the lead author of the study. “It’s the pairing of the two that leads to aggression.”

Over a third of working Americans are estimated to have been bullied—that is, belittled, threatened, humiliated or sabotaged—according to a separate survey of 7,740 workers. And 72 percent of the perpetrators are bosses. The Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group based in Bellingham, Wash., sponsored the national survey.

“

Abusive supervision is a major problem in U.S. companies.This is bad because it leads to high turnover and poorer performance,” Fast said. “We wanted to figure out what the mechanisms were that caused the power-holders to abuse their underlings.”

To do so, the researchers conducted four studies with 410 participants.

In one experiment, half of the participants were conditioned to feel powerful by recalling experiences of power over others. The other participants remained neutral as they were made to remember mundane events. Some members from each group were then conditioned to feel competent by recalling an achievement while the rest were conditioned to feel incompetent by recounting a failure.

Afterwards, the participants’ propensity for bullying was measured using a noise-blast horn, a tool used by psychologists to gauge aggression. The participants were instructed to select the decibel levels of the horn blasts to be used when strangers made mistakes. The volume of the noise blasts revealed how aggressive the participants were.

“The people in the high-power condition who also felt incompetent were the ones who exposed these strangers to high-noise blasts,” Fast said. “None of the other groups did.”

Ruth McKay, an organizational behavior specialist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, said the study has timely implications on workplace conduct.

“I find the results very interesting especially in today’s environment where baby boomers are exiting the workplace and there may be employees that are promoted too quickly without training to fill the gaps,” she said. “They may use aggression as a response if challenged.”

Adam Galinsky, a management and organization professor at the Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University, expressed concern about thrusting unprepared people into leadership positions as well.

“Organizations need to train people for leadership,” he said. “They need to not only give skills but to also provide a sense of ‘I know what I am doing.’”

Air Med flight nurse Laura Sorensen told her boss in 1993 that she had multiple sclerosis. In hindsight, she believes, she shouldn’t have.After learning of Sorensen’s diagnosis, University Hospital wouldn’t let her return to her job, she said, and instead moved her to its burn unit. Sorensen filed suit under the Americans with Disability Act — ADA — but a judge threw out the case because she was not physically impaired enough to be considered disabled.

And that, she said, was exactly her point: At that time, she wasn’t disabled and was capable of doing her job.

Now in a wheelchair, Sorensen told her story to legislators Wednesday in the hope they will consider passing a new law that protects health care employees from being bullied by their employers.
“I don’t want others in the future to fall through the legal cracks as I did,” she said.

The Health Care Provider Abusive Work Environment Prohibition Act (HB 224) would protect workers from a “work place where an employee is subjected to abusive conduct that is so severe that it causes physical or psychological harm to the employee,” the bill states.

Its sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said the law would stop “what is in some areas a culture of intimidation in the workplace” by protecting those employers that adopt policies against bullying from legal action.

Such a law is necessary, he said, because unless an employee falls into one of five protected classes — race, religion, disability, gender and age — they have little recourse under federal law.

Michelle Swift, a registered nurse and attorney who specializes in employment law, said Utahns can apply for Workers’ Compensation benefits if they have been “psychologically injured.” But those claims are seldom approved.

Sandstrom’s law, she said, “would allow employers to become involved and to have accountability and responsibility that would provide for that safe working environment for the employee — and ultimately good patient care.”

Opponents of such a law fear it will open a floodgate of lawsuits.
But Sandstrom said his bill sets the bar high for bringing legal action by precisely defining an abusive work environment. “It’s not going to be easy for someone to say just because they got yelled at once, they were abused in the workplace,” he said.

And proponents of the law say it would protect not only employees, but patients. Medical errors, such as giving out the wrong dose of a medication, are more likely to occur when a health care worker is upset, they assert.

Denise Halverson, the Workplace Bullying Institute’s (WBI) legislative coordinator in Utah, recounted the story of a toddler who was recovering from burns. She acted thirsty, sucking furiously on wet washcloths, and her mother called nurses twice one night.

The nurses repeated what their supervising doctor had said: She’s fine. Not long after, however, her heart stopped and she died of dehydration.

“It’s not because the nurses didn’t care. They did,” said Halverson, who contacted Sandstrom about carrying the bill after her own sister was the victim of workplace abuse. “They just weren’t willing to follow up” due to fear of retribution from the doctor.

Gary Namie, founder of the WBI and coauthor of “The Bully at Work,” met with Sandstrom and a small group of health care workers Tuesday night at the capitol. Bullying in a health care workplace, he said, can have disastrous results.

“You have an industry where if this happens, you have death as a potential consequence,” he said. Namie said Utah is one of 16 states that have introduced a bill protecting targets of workplace bullies. But not one has had a floor hearing in a state House or Senate.

The country has collectively said no to domestic violence, no to child abuse. But workplace abuse, Namie said, “is the last bastion of abuse where we tolerate it. It is not only not taboo, it’s rewarded and promoted.”

Legislators expressed concern that such abuses may be happening, but some were unsure whether Sandstrom’s bill solves the problem or shifts it to the courts.

“You’ve made some horrendous accusations I’m sure the other side will want to be heard on,” said Health and Human Services Committee Chair Chris Buttars, who plans to give employers an hour to be heard on the subject during a future meeting.

But, added the Republican senator: “What you’ve said, if only fractionally true, is ridiculous.”

lrosetta@sltrib.com

An epidemic of workplace bullying in hospitals and clinics has gotten so bad it will take legislation to put a stop to it, members of the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Interim committee were told Wednesday.
And, it’s having direct negative effects — sometimes fatal — on the care of patients, said Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, whose anti-bullying bill (HB 224) was referred by fellow lawmakers this past session to interim study. The committee took no action Wednesday but will continue studying the issue at monthly meetings between now and the Legislature’s general session beginning in January.

Witnesses told committee members that intimidation and other acts of emotional violence by superiors to front-line care providers foster medical errors, contribute to poor care outcomes, increase the cost of care and at minimum force people out jobs they neither want nor should have to leave.

The Workplace Bullying Institute’s director, Gary Namie, testified that half the workforce has either been bullied (37 percent) or have witnessed it (12 percent), and that 40 percent of administrators in effect ignore the problem or impose some kind of workforce sanction against the employee involved, not the intimidating superior.

The “proclivities of a tyrant boss” can also include simply shutting someone out of their work for fear of future reprisals and without basis, a retired certified emergency nurse from South Jordan told committee members.

Laura Sorensen said she was barred from being an AirMed nurse by University of Utah risk assessment attorneys because “I had the gall of being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. They looked into their magic crystal ball and saw a potential lawsuit and that day, swept me under the rug.”
She said although she was forthright with her supervisors and told them of the diagnosis and that she would ground herself the minute she felt physically compromised by the disabling disease, she was immediately deemed too much of a public relations risk. Because AirMed helicopters provide emergency care in the most high-profile accidents that more often than not are covered by the news media, any sign of impairment such as a limp caught on tape and seen by a victim’s family would lay the university open to a malpractice lawsuit, she was told.

To add insult to injury, she said, her superiors regarded her as disabled without the slightest indication she was. Ironically, she wasn’t technically disabled enough under the Americans with Disabilities Act that would have protected her from the discrimination against her by the U., she said.

Sorensen said the fears were unfounded and she worked full time for 10 years at other emergency-care centers after her 1993 diagnosis.

Because there is no legal protection against workplace bullying, more than 80 percent of such accusations are dismissed by equal-opportunity and human-resource departments because they can find no “reasonable cause” for action.

Any bullying legislation is too late to protect her, Sorensen said. “In the future, my hope is that employees have adequate laws in place because I don’t want others in the future to fall through the legal cracks and experience the same indignity.”

Read the text of HB 224.

Take a stand. Do something different if only during this week. Eventually, we will gather and march on corporations and state legislatures demanding justice. For now, your victory may be completely personal and internal or within the work team or among loved ones. Just do something differently this week. For your health’s sake if you are the one targeted or for the others you care about.  See our suggestions.

TELL THE WORLD WHAT YOU HAVE PLANNED — POST IT IN A COMMENT HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Namie

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

Gillman had closed the plant in Dec. 2008 without notice or the severance pay due to 240 union workers (represented by the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America – UE). The Dec 5-11 sit-in by the union inspired the nation partly because Bank of America (on the heels of the initial bank bailout) was tarnished as the greedy bank that kept a good-guy CEO from meeting payroll.

Diligent union sit-in members found Gillman to much less than honest. He was a crook who knew his factory would have to shut down but did not tell creditors or employees. He ordered the trucking of equipment from his Illinois union shop to his non-union Iowa factory. Union members trailed the trailers. (Saving the equipment enabled Serious Materials, a California firm, to buy the factory.)

That sit-in is memorialized in Michael Moore’s film Capitalism: A Love Story.  During the sit-in, Gillman could not access his office for documents. It was those documents that led to his being charged with defrauding creditors of over $10 million and using the money for paying off two luxury cars and not paying employees their $2 million. Gillman is charged with 8 counts of felony theft, fraud and money laundering through two shell corporations. His bail was set at $10 million.

Telling remarks from the union about the arrest, “Corruption and abuse of workers rights is rampant in corporate America.  Very often where you see violations of workers rights there are other corporate crimes and poor conditions as well … we all hope that this is the beginning of more bosses being held accountable for their crimes against workers.”

Let us hope that accountability can be restored for many more executives.

According to the LA Times, Crystal was born into a family of textile workers. By age 17 she was in the mill. In 1973 at age 33 she was working for $2.65 an hour at the J. P. Stevens factory in Roanoke Rapids, NC sporting a union pin. A coal miner-turned-organizer, Eli Zivkovich, was attempting to unionize the workers.

She angered management and was fired for supporting the union. Immediately afterwards, she wrote “UNION” on piece of cardboard, climbed onto a table with the sign raised. The workers switched off their machines. Crystal was arrested. The next year the plant voted in the union. She won back wages (only $13,000) and moved on.

Her subsequent union advocacy cost her a second marriage. The story of her heroism was written in a 1975 book and inspired the movie “Norma Rae,” which led to Sally Field’s Oscar winning performance depicting Crystal. The producers fought Crystal over details of the movie; she forbade them from using her name.

Crystal Lee Sutton worked as a maid and security guard until her health deteriorated.

Her legacy : “It is not necessary I be remembered as anything, but I would like to be remembered as a woman who deeply cared for the working poor and the poor people of the U.S. and the world.”

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

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

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

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

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

The gist is that during times of economic expansion, workers are stressed by overtime and sleep less, hence they drink and smoke and commute to jobs which causes pollution which in turn leads to a spike in heart disease which all negatively influence health.

However, deaths remained stable during the Depression (except for suicides) and life expectancy increased from 57 to 63 years. You can read the research abstract below.  In 2005 Granados published a similar study in the Journal of Epidemiology and was c