Interview conducted by Taylor Korsak, Editorial Intern for Human Resources iQ. Listen to the Audio Podcast.

1. Let’s begin our discussion by defining “bullying in the workplace.” How common is it and why should it be a major concern for company leaders?

First, let me be clear that we distinguish bullying from incivility, inappropriateness, rudeness and disrespect. Our definition is “repeated, health-harming mistreatment by one or more employees directed toward another employee that takes the form of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, and humiliation, interference with work production or in some combination.” It is a form of abuse. It is recognized by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as a non-physical form of workplace violence. Bullying is not merely an arched eyebrow or raised voice, it is a systematic campaign of interpersonal destruction launched by one person, with many others soon joining in, to destroy another person’s health, status, identity, job, career, and sometimes even their family.

We know from the national scientific studies we’ve run in 2010 and 2007 that 35 percent of all adult Americans have been directly bullied, according to our definition.

Business leaders should care because of its impact on employee health, work productivity impaired by excessive absenteeism, turnover (loss) of the best and brightest workers, workers comp and disability claims and litigation expenses. They should care, but those same national surveys found that the most likely response by employers to reported bullying was to ignore or worsen it.

2.  What is the most common bully-target relationship in terms of roles? Why?

Bullying is mostly top-down. Bullies outrank their targets in 72 percent of cases (2007 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey). Coworkers are perpetrators in 18 percent of incidents; 10 percent of the time it is a brave subordinate who bullies up the ladder.

Why? It is simply easier to inflict pain when you have title power. Coworkers can make your life miserable through ostracism (no small thing), but they cannot threaten to take your job away as the employer can. With so few people in unions, anyone can be fired for any reason on a whim.

All bullies share the need to control other people. They are bright, but not introspective or self-critical and they need to dominate to feel whole. There is an overwhelming narcissism that compels every action. Unless others agree to follow, they will be banished. Narcissism is not restricted to any position in an organization chart.

3. What are some researched effects of bullying and why do targets often neglect to speak up?

Bullying of adults by adults involves a great deal of shame and guilt. Shame is the bully’s goal from humiliating the target. Half of bullying is behind closed doors, so without explicitly telling friends and family, it is the bully’s and target’s secret. Personal guilt can arise because the person is mad that she or he allowed the bullying to happen. Bullies choose their targets, methods, timing, and place, but somehow, targets internalize responsibility, or shared responsibility (from our societal “it takes two to tango” or the equally inane “there are two sides to every story”), for what is happening to them. Shame and guilt prevent targets from speaking up.

In addition, the work culture is clear to those who work there. Complainers are dubbed troublemakers and retaliated against.

Research on the effects of bullying on individuals is extensive. The studies come from the fields of occupational health, epidemiology, medicine, neuroscience, and social sciences. A summary breaks the impact on people into three categories of harm: health, social relations and economic.

Health harm begins with stress-related physical health consequences. Cardiovascular system impact has the earliest onset — hypertension. High blood pressure results from abusive supervisors. The risk of coronary heart disease is 40 percent greater if workers believe their supervisors are unjust and bullies go well beyond being unjust. Cortisol, the stress hormone, is measured routinely in studies and is found to be too high in people exposed to unremitting mistreatment. Most fascinating is that prolonged stress ages women prematurely, costing them 9-12 years of life expectancy, based on studies measuring telomeres — the protective tips of DNA chromosomes.

Health harm is also the psychological-emotional impact, ranging from debilitating anxiety to clinical depression induced by work to PTSD to suicide. Our online (non-scientific) surveys found that 39 percent of targets have been diagnosed with depression and 30 percent of women targets suffer PTSD. Doubters don’t think work can traumatize individuals, but remember bullying creates an abusive relationship. Abuse can traumatize, not everyone, but far too many.

Harm to social relationships primarily involves ostracism, social exclusion, by coworkers. Targets are treated as pariahs once targeted. Coworkers do little to help – they fear for their own safety and status.

Economic harm is clear. The most effective current way to stop the bullying is for the target to lose the job she or he once loved. According to our 2007 national study, 40 percent quit (probably for their health’s sake). An additional 24 percent were fired (by manufactured performance reports or other lies).

4. You draw an interesting parallel between bullying and Darwinism – the concept of survival of the fittest – stating how certain corporate cultures designated by CEOs to weed out the least effective workers and bullying might beneficial for such a goal. Needless to say, CEOs are often thinking very differently than others in their business – how could an anti-bullying campaign appeal to the CEO? How should one build a case?

Yes, bullies and their apologists are social Darwinists. The organizing principle that dominates the entire company is the CEO’s narcissism. He (and it’s a “he” in 97 percent of firms in the U.S.) sets the tone.

Jack Welch comes to mind. He is granted hero status, forgetting his old moniker of “Neutron Jack” who had the reputation of obliterating companies of workers.

I agree that CEOs do think differently. Welch taught his CEO colleagues to focus on shareholder value and short-term profits. His famous strategy of firing 10 percent of workers regardless of performance, to keep them afraid, is simply not human. Unfortunately, that mindset has been adopted by sheep-like Welchians. It’s easy to be cruel.

Some leaders are different people but with a personal moral inner directedness. They stand out because of their rarity. Not everyone believes treating workers like chattel is sufficient. Some can see value in long-term viability, not simply having monotonically rising quarterly profits.

I draw this distinction because without CEO approval (and some degree of participation), there can be no anti-bullying initiative success in the long-run. The CEOs who have brought us in to deal with bullying fall into two categories: early adopters and the legacy-oriented. It is counter-cultural to want to stop bullying that historically has been the characterization of the American style of managing. Bold contrarian CEOs love to be first to adopt a new program before it becomes a fad. Public awareness of workplace bullying has grown exponentially since we started back in mid-97 and corporate attorneys are warning their clients to not ignore the problems bullying causes.

Legacy-oriented leaders may be transitioning to a different post or the final phase of their careers. They want to leave behind something for which they can be remembered. The legacy can be within the industry, among their peer CEOs or for the workers at the company they led. Their gift is to establish a bullying-free workplace with their name attached.

Sadly, the impersonal, traditional business-case arguments that bullying increases risk exposure and that it eats into the bottom line fall onto deaf ears. The personal bonds between executives and their beloved bullies trump fiscal impact, though it makes no business sense. It is a world turned upside down, driven by favoritism and ingratiation, but it is more tangible and real than balance sheets.

The ROI for an anti-bullying program is great. But as long as “Bob the bully” is free to operate with the CEO’s blessing (or implicit approval through his indifference to complaints), stopping bullying will appear expensive when in fact it is the bully who is too expensive to keep!

5. What are other contributing factors that could lead to a bullying situation in terms of personality types and environment?

Most people begin with the assumption that bullies must be crazy or disturbed. Not so. Most bullies are not psychopaths; however those who bully are certainly narcissistic. They have an inflated sense of themselves relative to what others think, but they need not have a certifiable personality disorder. They are egocentric and selfish though that is true of many millions of us.

Bullies are astute at reading cues in the work environment. For instance, they see subtleties that others miss. They see that aggressive acts are noticed by management, which, in turn, are rewarded. Sometimes the reward is a promotion though more likely it’s the granting of special privileges. Those of us who are not bullies might see it and decide that it is deplorable to take advantage of another person but bullies see it as a skill necessary for political survival and career progress. Then, when they are aggressive themselves and reap personal rewards for doing to, the pattern is established. It is simple learning theory — positive reinforcement increases the likelihood that the rewarded behavior will reoccur.

Bullying is always a mix of personality of the bully and target and work environment. But environment is more influential than personality. Regardless of the person’s disposition, if conditions are engineered to create and sustain bullying, most employees can act like bullies at work. They do not become bullies in other domains of their lives. At work, however, they slip into a role and follow the unwritten script. The power of environment over personality is backed by decades of social psychological research.

6. If one is a bystander or witness to a bullying situation, is it his/her responsibility to do something? How should he/she proceed?

We would all like to think we would jump to rescue another person in danger. A bullied target is in danger, but we know from experience and research that others do relatively nothing. We imagine a brave encounter with the bully when the coworker stands shoulder to shoulder with the target and counterattacks. That’s myth. It happens less than 1 percent of the time (according to our 2008 study).

So, why expect coworkers to help when they see a target emerge from a closed-door berating and slip into her or his cubicle without saying a word? Social influence is strongest when situations are ambiguous or murky. A witness can rationalize not doing anything by concluding that he was misinterpreting what he saw and that it was not his business to butt into someone else’s privacy.

You are not likely to be there during the bullying incident. The target will describe events later. Gather all the other coworkers and establish that the response will have to be undertaken by the group. Purposefully share the responsibility. Decide what to do together — go two levels over the bully’s head or confront the bully in person — and have all participate. Power comes from a unified group. Stick to holding the person accountable because of the disruption of work, not because they have a warped personality. Make an impersonal financial impact argument to the highest level manager you can find without accidentally complaining to the bully’s relative or the boss who hired him.

Link to the original article

Here’s the local newspaper account:

Grand jury finds workplace bullying a problem within county government by John Scheibe, Ventura County Star, June 16, 2011

The Ventura County Grand Jury recently concluded that workplace bullying is a problem in county government offices and encouraged county officials to develop a policy against bullying in the workplace.

“Unfortunately, bullying is not limited to schools,” the grand jury stated in a letter released in late May.
The 2010-11 grand jury investigated bullying within county government after getting a complaint about it. As part of this, the grand jury interviewed past and current county employees who were the targets of bullying or witnessed it.

John Nicoll, assistant county executive officer and the director of human resources for the county, said county officials are preparing a response to the grand jury’s report.

“We understand the concerns about conduct like that in the workplace,” Nicoll said.

Grand jurors found employees “were yelled at by managers in group meetings and in public areas.”
Also, employees, including some highly experienced ones, “were excessively monitored by managers to such an extent that they left their positions,” the grand jury’s report stated.

Some employees went to other agencies, while others accepted “a demotion to receive that transfer.”
Others left county government for other jobs or retired earlier than they had planned because of a “manager’s bullying behavior,” the grand jury found.

Some employees were isolated both “organizationally and physically,” the report stated.
The report found the county “has no written policy specifically directed against bullying in the workplace.”
It also found that processes to report workplace bullying “are not trusted by employees because the agency with the alleged bullying issue is allowed to investigate complaints using personnel within its own organization.”

Nicoll said there are mechanisms now in place for county employees to file a complaint if they believe they have been discriminated against.

As to the allegation by the grand jury that county employees have left their jobs because of workplace bullying, Nicoll said he “would be upset if someone were legitimately fleeing the workplace if they felt they were being mistreated” and felt they had no recourse but to leave.

“We do not tolerate employees being mistreated because they’ve filed a complaint,” Nicoll said. “I’m disappointed if someone left for that reason.”

Nicoll said he did not know how widespread a problem workplace bullying is in the county government.
However, he said “the county has gotten very limited number of complaints of inappropriate treatment by their supervisors.”

The Workplace Bullying Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eradicating workplace bullying through research and education, commissioned a 2010 study that found 35 percent of workers in the United States have experienced bullying firsthand. Men constitute 62 percent of bullies, while women make up 58 percent of the targets of bullying, according to the study. Female bullies target other women 80 percent of the time, according to the study, done by Zogby International. The study found workplace bullying is a silent epidemic since many workers who are victims of it or witness it fail to report it.

The group, which is based in Washington state, defines workplace bullying as repeated, health-harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers against others. Workplace bullying is legal in many states across the nation, according to the institute. The institute is working to introduce bills in various state legislatures that would make workplace bullying illegal.

The institute also found that workplace bullying costs companies millions of dollars in employee turnover, lost productivity and lawsuits. The grand jury seemed to agree, stating in its report that workplace bullying costs taxpayers additional money because the county must incur the cost of recruiting and training replacement personnel for those who have left their jobs because of bullying. …

The grand jury is recommending the Ventura County Board of Supervisors issue a policy against bullying and collect data “to identify the existence and extent of bullying in branches of county government.”
Such a policy should include descriptions of bullying behaviors to educate employees on unacceptable workplace behaviors and encourage employees to report this type of workplace abuse, the grand jury said.

###

READ THE GRAND JURY REPORT

###

Solutions for Ventura County can be found in the book The Bully-Free Workplace and at the website for the premier workplace bullying consultants, The Work Doctor®

Visit the HR Failed Me Forum to tell your HR story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the Good News …

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

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

Botched efforts occurred in only 5.3% of cases.

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

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

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

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 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

[See post to watch Flash video]

“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

Here are 3 examples from May-June, 2009 seminar marketing to HR.

“When Employees Strike Back”
“Banish Bullies and their Lawsuits”
“Make Unions Irrelevant”

1) Hyped sales-oriented headline for a seminar “When Employees Strike Back”

Rationale given: “The number of retaliation claims against employers skyrocketed to record 32,690 in fiscal year 2008, resulting in more than $111 million in monetary awards.”

HR skills to acquire: “Learn how to avoid damaging retaliation jury awards”

This is mythical because retaliation claims by employees can be filed only after original claims of discrimination were answered by employer retaliation. You complain that you were discriminated against — sexual harassment or racial discrimination or age discrimination or your disability caused them to mistreat you — and the sham HR “investigation” concludes no wrongs were done. The employer enabled the harassment to happen in the first place! On top of that insult, the employer demotes you, punishes you in some way or fires you for daring to insist on your dignity. So, you can file a retaliation claim.
Retaliation is the employer, often with HR’s guidance, striking down the employee a second time. How can it be characterized as employees striking back? Funny, if it was not a seminar taught by an attorney helping HR keep complaining employees in their place.

2) Hyped sales-oriented headline for a seminar “Banish Bullies and their Lawsuits”
[This is our favorite.]

Actual title of the attorney-led seminar: “Workplace Shootings, Domestic Violence, and Bullying: New Challenges and Legal Threats for Employers”

Rationale given: “More than 71 million American workers are victims of bullying at work, according to a recent study by the Workplace Bullying Institute.” (Wrong! It’s 54 million who have directed experienced bullying. The 71 million includes witnesses. They found the WBI-Zogby survey statistics but can’t cite them correctly.)

“New pending legislation in 16 states that prohibit bullying in the workplace and what these laws could mean for employers” (Wrong again! Here, they cite the history of the WBI-Legislative Campaign which has had 16 states since 2003 with some version of our anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. In 2009, 12 states had active legislation. And they did not bother to mention that the “toughest” versions of the bill do not carry a mandate requiring employers to do anything. They only get the chance to avoid being sued if they create policies and faithfully enforce them — something they should be doing as good business practice voluntarily. Again, too tough for corporate attorneys to read accurately.)

The seminar contents focuses on workplace violence and domestic violence intruding into the workplace and the security risks they pose. The reference to bullying was limited to coverage of “bully bosses” and the legal liabilities they bring to any organization.” Note that they used bullying as a hot topic sales gimmick.

The presenter is an attorney, author of Workplace Catastrophes: An Employer’s Guide to Workplace Violence, Terrorism and Natural Disasters.

If WBI dared to associate bullying with terrorism, we’d be banished. It would imply that employers hire terrorists to do their bidding as bullies. But evidently it’s OK for employers to brand employees they don’t like terrorists.

3) Hyped sales-oriented headline for a seminar “Make Unions Irrelevant”

Actual seminar title: “Minimize the Impact of EFCA and Unions with Powerful HR Communications”

(EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act, is the proposed federal legislation making union organizing easier, the first new labor law in over 30 years in the U.S.)

For this training, the outline of its content is especially revealing (and funny):

- “Communication techniques to win the hearts and minds of your employees by championing your organization’s sound policies and benefits” (Yea, right. Loyalty in exchange for policies that are not enforced and benefits that are disappearing.)

- “Specific internal communications to demonstrate why unions are irrelevant” (This is the union-busting industry’s best seller. It’s the mandated meetings when union organizers announce they want the employees to vote on having a union.

- “How to establish a first line of defense by monitoring the Internet for signs of organizing activity and chatter about your organization — because it all starts online” (The same people who want to win hearts and minds will conduct surveillance, just in case.)

- “How to overhaul supervisory communications immediately, so your supervisors can become advocates for management, listening posts, and experts in interpersonal relations” (This is a very narrow definition of communications skills. Listening is for surveillance purposes only and then only to report to higher ups what is heard and who is affiliating with whom. Are we clear here? It’s snitching.)

- “The grassroots nature of union communications, which focus on emotive language and an emphasis on people over profits” (Yes, that dastardly emphasis by people on people is grassroots by nature, union-driven, and employee advocacy must be struck down.

Readers will find WalMart’s categorization of which employees are “union-prone” equally illuminating.)

Also relevant to union prevention is the report by Kate Bronfenbrenner at Center for Economic Policy and Research. Employers more than doubled their use of anti-union tactics against employees attempting to form unions between 1999 and 2003. Sixty-three percent of employers use mandatory one-on-one, anti-union meetings with employees. Further, 57 percent of employers threatened to close the workplace, 47 percent of employers issued threats to slash benefits and wages, while 34 percent of employers fired workers during union organizing drives. Read the full May 20, 2009 report – No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing

So you see from these three examples, HR is about helping management communication focusing on profits and snitching. Nothing about HR need focus on employee rights, dignity at work, employee safety and health. HR works for the employer and must keep the corporate mission in mind – profits at the expense of people. No bleeding hearts need apply for HR.

G. Namie

So tell your HR story here. Please comment.

Actions Highlight Myth of HR as Employee “Advocates”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sept. 15, 2005

Wake Up, Get Real

Dear Alibi,

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

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

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

In the meantime, our war-fueled federal deficit mushrooms — and whither this debt now, as we care for the displaced and destroyed?

Bush, Cheney, Chertoff, Brown and Rice should be tried for criminal negligence. This country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than killing for oil.

Katrina itself was the size of New Mexico. Denials of global warming are ludicrous and patently irrational at this point. We can anticipate more wild, destructive weather to occur as a response stress of the planet. We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit. Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times.

Laura Berg
Albuquerque

In case, you think nurse Berg is overstating PTSD and its impact on veterans, read The Struggle to Gauge a War’s Psychological Cost by Benedict Carey, New York Times, Nov. 26, 2005

The VA vs. Berg story details were culled from these sources:

Big brother is watching by Steven Robert Allen, Albuquerque Alibi, Feb. 9-15, 2006

Nurse investigated for ‘sedition’ after writing letter to editor, Editor & Publisher, Feb. 11, 2006

ACLU protests investigation of VA employee for ‘sedition’ Jan. 31, 2006 press release by Peter Simonson, Executive Director, ACLU of New Mexico

Wake up, get real by Laura Berg, Albuquerque Alibi, Sept. 15, 2005

[See post to watch Flash video]

$119,957 — 2004 arbitration won by Northcutt
$225,000 — 2005 settlement won by Northcutt
$60,475 (est.) 10 years district contribution to her retirement
$35,200 (est.) 10 years health and welfare benefits for Northcutt
$104,956 — district legal expenses, all designed to enable bullying without consequences

$545,588 the total expense for ONE bully principal and 3 supportive district personnel !!!

How much harm and expense does a bully have to inflict before the wise employer decides to end the bullying? It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do. There are likely other cases just like this in the District. The Vallejo School Board should demand accountability for these losses or lose their elected seats themselves.

While some state laws require schools to curb bullying among students, all states currently allow unscrupulous bullying administrators to attack teachers with impunity. Stopping student bullying stands no chance until the work environment in which student learning ostensibly takes place is purged of abusers.

There are ways to correct and prevent expensive bullies. See the Work Doctor Blueprint for a Bullying-Free Workplace. Teachers deserve a safe and healthy workplace, too. Bullied Teacher Wins $225,000
Bully Principal and District Supporters Costs Employer Over $545,000 Total!

Teacher Settles Lawsuit with VCUSD for $225,000
By Sarah Rohrs and Kenneth Brooks
Vallejo (CA) Times-Herald
Feb. 13, 2006

A Vallejo (CA) High School teacher who sued State Administrator Richard Damelio and other district officials for alleged harassment, discrimination and retaliation has agreed to an out-of-court settlement.

In a court document signed Dec. 2, the Vallejo City Unified School District agreed to pay veteran teacher Vernetta Northcutt $225,000 stemming from emotional distress damages associated with the civil lawsuit.

The settlement was obtained through a written request to the school district.

The district also agreed to pay her regular salary through June 30, and pay on her behalf 10 years and six months of service to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. A 20-year teacher earns a base salary of $66,757, and a 23-year teacher, $68,528. The district pays 8.825 percent of her salary annually for retirement.

Further, the district agreed to pay Northcutt’s health and welfare benefits for 10 years. Under the new health benefit cap that went into effect for employee groups this year, the district pays 80 percent of costs, which comes to $4,400 for a teacher with single coverage.

For her part, Northcutt agreed to be placed on paid administrative leave Dec. 17, and resign from her job. Under the settlement terms, she cannot seek employment in the school district. A confidentiality agreement prevents Northcutt and district officials from talking about the settlement. The confidentiality portion of the agreement allows the district to seek fines of $15,000 against Northcutt should she breach the clause. The agreement also restricts district officials from what they can say about why Northcutt left her position.

The settlement brings to an end a 3 1/2-year legal battle which has cost the school district $104,956 in legal fees, according to district records. Those legal fees are in addition to the December $225,000 settlement, plus $119,197 Northcutt received as a result of a 2004 arbitration award.

In her October civil lawsuit, Northcutt alleged district officials failed to honor a previous arbitration award and punished her for complaining.

She was seeking compensation for emotional distress and back wages denied when her sick leave was cut off, as well as punitive damages, civil penalties, and injunctions against harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

In February 2004, an arbitrator found that Vallejo High School Principal Phil Saroyan racially discriminated against Northcutt when he transferred her to another classroom. She received $70,000 for emotional distress, $41,322 in attorneys’ fees and $7,875 in back pay. She was also reinstated to her previous teaching assignment.

The district appealed the award to the Solano County Superior Court where judges sided with Northcutt. An appeal of that ruling was pending in the state Court of Appeal when the settlement was signed.

Besides Damelio and Saroyan, the recent suit also named Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Rose Peppin, and Director of Compliance and Community Services Karen Hansen. In 2004, when the arbitrator originally ruled in Northcutt’s favor, Assistant Superintendent Kevin Hanks told the Times-Herald that the arbitrator “overstepped her bounds,” and that claims of racial discrimination by Saroyan were “unfounded.”

In June 2002, Saroyan reassigned Northcutt, a 20-year district veteran with tenure, from 12th grade government and English to 10th grade world history, a grade and subject she had never taught before. The move violated the district’s collective bargaining agreement. Northcutt alleged it was racially motivated.

In a 2004 interview with the Times-Herald, Northcutt said Saroyan gave her reasons for the original reassignment, including a high student failure rate. However, the arbitrator found her class had the second lowest failure rate in her department.

In the 2004 interview, Hanks acknowledged “there were concerns regarding complaints and the number of transfers in and out of her classroom.” He added that Northcutt wasn’t the only Vallejo High teacher reassigned that year.

Rather than uphold the arbitrator’s award, Northcutt alleged that the district tried to demote her to a substitute teacher, and singled her out for her pursuit of discrimination claims.