1. The Security Consultant’s Perspective…
Workplace violence is a reality whether it happens at the warehouse, plant, parking lot, hospital or treatment center, and office or while sitting in your car taking notes. It should not be swept under the carpet. The average out of court civil suit settlement is in the range of $300,000 to $500,000; jury rendered verdicts awarding $1 Million dollars plus. A clear reporting system should be implemented and all employees should be trained and encouraged to report all incident
Training and Security Awareness makes good sense. While all supervisors and managers should receive some form of orientation on Threat Assessment and Risk Management all employees should receive training also. Key to the fair and equitable determination of an incident is total analysis of available information about the participants, the incident and the environment. Knowledge of how to conduct a fact-finding investigation should be part of the Threat Assessment Training for supervisors in determination of the type of disciplinary action or deciding criminal prosecution. Companies wishing to gain a perspective of their workplace violence potential risks should begin with a security survey of all employees and environment. Training to assist employees in identifying warning signs of workplace violence and what steps to take to de-escalate incidents before eruption is next. Essential to a good workplace violence prevention program is the policy and the plan to deal with incidents. Unfortunately, some companies have paid little to no attention to the implementation of asecurity policy and plans because, “We don’t have a security problem here”.
2. Are we really safe…
Linda Lockwood, PhD, Metropolitan State College of Denver says that workplace violence is obviously a serious problem that must be better understood in order to prevent its occurrence. Its cost to our society is measured in terms of dollars and human life. For instance, it’s the second greatest cause of death in the workplace for men and the first greatest cause of death for women (E. Gonzalez, Confronting workplace violence psychologist traces everyday causes, Rocky Mountain News, October, 1999). Recent headlines underscore the reality that workplace violence is a phenomenon, which affects every institution and workplace, and that the perpetrator is a microcosum of our society.
Nevertheless, we must guard against potential acts of violence by doing something; being aware, holding the participants accountable and providing support services. Employee security checklist and opinion surveys are essential tools available to the security consultant to assist in the assessment and evaluation process. They will tell you that lights in the parking lot are not working, that they feel insecure visiting clients or patients alone or that a reduced hospital staff on weekends leaves the hospital security short of staff. Preparation will help to minimize injury and the risk of fatalities.
3. What studies show…
In addition to the disgruntled employee which, is the greatest security threat to the workplace or the mentally ill worker, business practices also are potential contributors to a hostile workplace. A supervisor aware of a disgruntled employee can’t afford to discipline him or her because, the loss might have an adverse affect on efficiency and performance. Environmental changes to improve security measures are too costly and the changes are not needed. While employees are often victims of their jobs, positions and contact with the public, job stress and personal distresses are real factors that increase the likelihood of workplace violence. A theory of the workplace violence and aggression is that an “individual’s cognitive appraisal” of a situation can create more severe affective reactions and potentially aggressive behaviors in situations that may not call for heightened responses”. In other words, some people may create a “mountain out of a mole hole”, because of the way they unrealistically interpret their situation.
4. Stress is a real factor…
Profiles of perpetrators suggest that high stress levels are commonly experienced just prior to an act of violence says Worthington J. Hurrell, in 1999 in an article entitled: “Job stress, gender, and workplace violence Analysis of assault experiences of state employees”. Dr. Frank Ghinassi, PhD, and assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, said that the start of war can bring on feelings of anxiety over personal safety, financial security and the safety of loved ones in military service. He stressed that it was possible that many would experience feelings of increased stress and anxiety. I believe aggressive intervention and security awareness are essential to the interdiction of the potentially explosive situation.
5. The President comes to the rescue…
Challenging the effectiveness of an aggressive Workplace Violence Interdiction Program was the 1999 Federal Trade Commission Fair Credit Reporting opinion that prohibited employers’ use of outside professional investigators in cases of suspected employee misconduct unless the same requirements used in credit investigations were satisfied. This meant that the worker suspected of misconduct had to be notified before any investigation. In addition, the FTC required that the employer provide a complete copy of the investigation’s results to the suspect employee, including the names and comments of witnesses.
Thanks to the yeoman efforts of ASIS (Association of Security Industrial Society), the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) and the National Council of Investigation and Security Services, President Bush signed a bill into law Dec. 4, 2003 re-authorizing the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which includes a provision that removes workplace misconduct investigations from the notice and disclosure requirements of the FCRA. This re-authorization aids workplace security intervention. ASIS officials said these barriers were overlooked by Congress until Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) perceived the possible threat posed to the security and safety of employees and consumers by the FTC opinion. Sarah Pierce, SHRM manager of employment policy, said, “the FTC’s 1999 interpretation was problematic because it contradicted numerous other laws that were specifically tailored to apply to the workplace.” “Because of the changes, employers can now hire outside experts to investigate incidents of workplace misconduct without fear of liability”, said Josh Ulman, Director, Labor Law Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The re-authorization restores the employer’s right to maintain a safe and secure workplace and insures a suspect’s right to a professional, thorough and impartial investigation.
6. Corporate America takes responsibility and accountability…
Employers who take responsibility and accountability for the hostile conduct of its employees are employers who follow their Security Policy, Plans and Programs. Merely disciplining the perpetrator without a thorough knowledge of the facts and circumstances does not do justice to the adverse potential to morale, performance, production, future compensation claims and security. It fails to identify the root cause or the contributing behavior of the participants. Remember, every catastrophe has a precursor event before the triggering action. Knowing the Risk Indicators warns all of the suspicious intentions. When there are clear reporting requirements all involved will benefit from the early warning and collaboration. Corporate America can again regain the lost turf. Being able to conduct a proper investigation, take corrective measures will assist with the rehabilitation process.