|
|
 |
http://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/some-real-job-killers-executive-salaries-bullying-managers-health-care-costs-and-demanding-stockholders/
Some real “job killers”: Executive
salaries, bullying managers, health care costs, and demanding stockholders The Chamber of Commerce and other powerful trade organizations are fond of using the
term “job killer” to denigrate virtually any proposed legislation or regulation that protects workers, consumers, or
the environment. They claim that costs of prevention and compliance drain monies that otherwise would be used to create
jobs. Sort of true, but not really Technically, perhaps they can make a case: If one assumes
there’s a fixed pot of money marked “for wages, salaries, and benefits,” and the costs of complying with
pesky labor, consumer, and environmental protections must come out of that pot, then I suppose the regulations can be called
job killers. But one does not have to be a corporate accountant to know that organizational budgeting doesn’t
work that way. The costs of social responsibility can come out of other buckets of money as well. Instead,
take a look In any event, in the interest of fair play, let’s consider an alternate list of job killers:
Executive salaries — Exorbitant executive salaries and accompanying
perks surely kill jobs, especially when the high pay isn’t merited due to poor performance. A mediocre CEO earning
$300,000 is just as good as a mediocre CEO earning $1 million, except that with the $300,000 CEO, there’s another $700,000
left over to hire more workers. Bullying managers — Workplace
bullying increases employee attrition, absenteeism, and health care costs, while driving down employee morale and productivity
— all of which have negative bottom line impacts. In the U.S., the significant majority of workplace bullying is perpetrated
by managers and supervisors. Health care costs — Attempts to
create affordable, quality health care for all are continually thwarted by corporations, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical
companies that lobby Congress and state legislatures and form political action committees to reward their friends in elected
office. Demanding stockholders — Stockholders who pressure
corporations to post sky-high profits rather than reasonable ones are, in essence, drawing from monies that could be used
to hire workers and pay them a living wage. It’s not quite so easy Okay, I admit, it’s
more complicated than that. The business, labor, and regulatory climate in the U.S. is multifaceted, to say the least.
Fixing unemployment and a huge earnings gap, among other things, requires more than serving up competing bullet
points. But if we’re even going to consider the claim that safeguarding workers, consumers, and our planet kills
jobs, then at least let’s look at other major factors that curb job creation and preservation. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/sep/27/bullying-a-problem-within-county-government-says/ Bullying a problem within county government, Ventura County
Four
months after a grand jury report said workplace bullying was a problem within county government, a recent survey of about
500 employees said much the same. Sixty percent of the county employees surveyed said they had been bullied at work,
while 69 percent said they had witnessed bullying. Forty-four percent said they were yelled at while working and 43 percent
said they were retaliated against for speaking up. "I have been a victim of a long-term bullying and I'm here
on behalf of those who are afraid to step forward," said Gary Lowery, a biomedical equipment technician with the Ventura
County Health Care Agency who spoke Tuesday before the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Lowery was one of about 30 members of the SEIU Local 721 union who presented the report card on bullying to the
supervisors, asking that they take action to stop what some described as a pervasive problem. They wore purple union shirts
and held up signs reading, "It's not OK" and "Bullies are expensive." "The system does not
work right now," Perry Morefield told the board as he gave a list of things that should be changed to combat bullying.
"It will make the county a more acceptable and more effective place to work." Much as the grand jury recommended,
the SEIU — which represents about 4,200 of the county's 8,000 employees — wanted the board to come up with a
concrete policy on how to deal with bullying. Morefield also demanded mandatory training for managers, third-party oversight
of grievances, a centralized human resources department and meetings between the union and department heads. Ventura
County CEO Michael Powers said the county was going create a policy addressing the problem over the next 12 months, as well
as start a new hotline to report misconduct. The county also will try to educate people on what resources are available
for those who feel they are being bullied. "We share your belief that you deserve an open and positive workplace,"
Powers said, adding that with 8,000 employees, problems are bound to happen. "I don't think this is a pervasive problem,
but one instance is too many." Emmett Faulconer, a supervisor in the biomedical department at Ventura County Medical Center, said he's hopeful, but after 20 years with the county, he is dubious. The union will continue to put pressure on the board
for change and to make managers more accountable for bullying, he said. Faulconer said when he had a problem with
a manager who was doing offensive things, he complained a number of times and nothing was done. It was only after he and
other employees went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which told them they had a right to sue, that any action
was taken, he said. Faulconer said that manager still works for the county. Morefield said when he complained that
his supervisors were doing things in violation of health privacy laws, he was told he was going to be transferred to a different
department. He said he had 15 minutes to move nine years of files and work. He argued that the human resources managers
are part of the "old boys and old girls network," who just protect the other managers. After the seven
SEIU employees spoke before the board, many of the representatives who were in the audience marched around the normally
staid government center, waving signs and chanting: "What do we want? Respect! When do we want it? Now!"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/ct-biz-0919-work-advice-huppke-20110918,0,840477.column
Bullies bad
for bottom line
When push comes to shove, workplace
bullies are costing the company money. And that's a good focus when dealing with them.
Ask Rex Huppke:
I Just Work Here
September
18, 2011
As a species, it seems we're doomed to interact with jerks. It happens in high school,
and we think, "Once I get to college, things will be different." Then it happens in college, and we think,
"Once I get a job, people there will be more mature." Not
so much. Jerks abound, and, as fate would have it, the workplace is as much a breeding ground for bullies as the playground. While
much has been done in recent years to address bullies in the schoolyard, the issue of bullying at work remains largely under
the radar. In fact, because of a work culture that often rewards aggressiveness, bullies have a nasty tendency of succeeding
at work. "This is one of the great undiscussables in the American workplace because it seems if you haven't experienced
it, you're likely to believe it doesn't happen," said Gary Namie, a social psychologist and co-founder of the Workplace
Bullying Institute. "What we're seeing is a lot of abusive conduct, but it's accepted as routine in the American workplace." Last
year, Namie commissioned the polling group Zogby International to survey U.S. workers. The research found that 35 percent
of the country's workforce has experienced bullying on the job, and another 15 percent has seen it happen. The remaining
50 percent of respondents had neither seen nor experienced bullying, a statistic that Namie said makes it hard for some
to relate to the problem. He calls it a "silent epidemic." "So often in the workplace the feeling is,
'Hey, you're an adult, handle it yourself,'" Namie said. "They sometimes even blame the victim. But you know what?
We said that for domestic violence for a long, long time until they criminalized it. So people need to stop the silly rationalizations." To
be clear, "workplace bullying" doesn't apply to acts of violence. "What separates bullying from workplace
violence or harassment is the fact that the bullying is something that's done on a continuous basis," said Timothy
Dimoff, founder of SACS Consulting & Investigative Services, an Ohio-based company that specializes in high-risk workplace
and human resource issues. "It's constant and repetitive; someone who's using different means of harassment, whether
it's complaining about the person, spreading rumors, blaming them, encouraging others not to talk to the person. It's more
psychological and emotional abuse." Think about your workplace, and there's a good chance you've seen this or
dealt with it. In the most severe cases, a manager tries to sabotage an employee by taking credit for work or writing a
negative performance review. More routinely, a co-worker or manager picks away at an employee, making cracks about them
in front of other people, demeaning them even in subtle ways. This behavior may seem routine in a world of snarkiness,
but when it happens day in and day out, and when the targeted person feels unable to fix the situation, it can lead to serious
physical and mental health problems. Consider how difficult it might be, particularly in this job market, for a victim to protest the way a manager
is treating them. "Many people nowadays feel really locked in," Namie said. "Like there's no escape
route, and that just makes the situation worse." The fact is, some folks will find themselves in situations where
the only way out is to quit. That's obviously a worst-case scenario, but if a bully is making your life so miserable it's
affecting you physically and mentally, you've got to cut ties and take care of yourself. Before that, however, there
are steps you can take to try to put the bully in his or her place. "They need to take it to their human resources
person or their immediate supervisor," Dimoff said. "If they don't get any results, then they need to go to somebody
higher. In the meantime, they need to document when these things happen, where they happen and what was said and done. If
they don't write it down, it's hard to remember details, and things get distorted. When management sees an employee come
in with this in writing, they react much more quickly and thoroughly to it." Namie suggests that the target
look for ways to quantify the harm a bully is causing a company. How many people has the person driven away? How much work
time is eaten up contending with problems relating to the bully? "You want to be able to tell the executives that
the bully is too expensive to keep; actually present the business argument that the bully is too expensive," Namie
said. "What can discredit the person who is the target is emotionality. The emotionality is scary to management. So
you make a dispassionate argument." Of course, management is, or should be, responsible for creating an environment
that repels bullies. "The company needs to have policies and procedures against bullying and workplace violence,
and they need to let those procedures be very well known to their management and employees," Dimoff said. "Companies
need to work on creating a more positive culture. In positive cultures, we don't see the bullying. People work together
and don't resort to negative tools." Namie's Workplace Bullying Institute is pushing a Healthy Workplace Bill,
which is being considered in 11 states, that would crack down on office bullies and clearly define what it means to have
an "abusive work environment." You can learn more about the bill at healthyworkplacebIll.org. A
final point: If you think a bullying co-worker is trying to make you a target, be proactive. Bullies, at the end of
the day, are cowards. They feed off people who put up with their abuse. So the moment someone begins to pick at you, stand
up to them. Let them know you won't tolerate improper treatment. The alternative is to let it go, and that's almost
guaranteed to not end well. Talk to Rex: Ask workplace questions—anonymously or by name—and share stories
with Rex Huppke at IJustWorkHere@tribune.com, like him on Facebook at facebook.com/rexworkshere and find more at chicagotribune.com/ijustworkhere.
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1465971 Harvey Mackay: Work place bullying
is no bull Posted:
Sep 04, 2011, 4:13 pm The playground isn't the only place where
you'll run into bullies. Internet bullying has led to suicides. Office bullying is on the rise, and it's a deal-killer no
matter what business you're in.
If you think people outgrow bullying behavior just because they get older,
think again. Bullies come in all ages, shapes and sizes — and on all rungs of the corporate ladder.
Remarkably,
bullying in the workplace is among the leading reasons for employees to seek other employment. Even more remarkably, most
don't list bullying as the reason they quit.
Instead, they suffer in silence and take their talents elsewhere.
And suffer they do. Scholars at the Project for Wellness and Work-Life at Arizona State University found that "workplace
bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational and social costs." Their research indicated
that stress is the most predominant health effect associated with bullying in the workplace: "Stress has significant
negative effects that are correlated to poor mental health and poor physical health, resulting in an increase in the use
of sick days or time off from work."
Can any company afford that?
In a CareerBuilder survey
of more than 5,600 full-time employees, 27 percent of workers said they have felt bullied in the workplace. Most of them
didn't confront the offender or report the abusive behavior.
What form did the bullying take? Workers gave these
examples:
• Comments dismissed or not acknowledged: 43 percent.
• Falsely accused of a
mistake: 40 percent.
• Needlessly harsh criticism: 38 percent.
• Forced into doing work
that wasn't really part of the job: 38 percent.
• Held to different standards and policies from other workers:
37 percent.
• Made the focus of gossip: 27 percent.
• Yelled at by boss in front of co-workers:
24 percent.
• Belittling comments during meetings: 23 percent.
• Others taking credit
for work: 21 percent.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Management is responsible for keeping the
workplace free of sexual, racial or other forms of harassment and inappropriate behavior. If an issue is reported, reasonable
action should follow.
Unfortunately, sometimes the manager is the bully. If that manager has a manager, the
victim needs to go to that level. He or she might be doing the company a huge favor by exposing the reason so many good people
in that department are heading for the hills.
The victims of bullying have to take responsibility it's not safe
to assume anyone else is aware of the bullying if they don't report the problem. Bullies are notoriously sneaky. They pick
and choose their targets carefully. But that doesn't mean victims are helpless.
Take charge by following these
guidelines:
• Recognize bullying when it occurs. Mild teasing or isolated comments, even
if they're inappropriate, don't necessarily constitute harassment under the law. Stand up for your rights by all means,
but remember that harassment is more than just unwelcome behavior. Technically, it's behavior that discriminates against
gender, race, national origin or some other legally protected characteristic.
• Study your policy.
Most organizations have written policies that don't just prohibit harassment but also spell out the steps to take if an
employee feels uncomfortable. Check out the procedures for reporting unwelcome incidents to be sure you don't miss any options.
• Speak up to the harasser. Your first step should be to tell the person that his or her
behavior, comments or requests aren't welcome. In some cases, the matter may end there. But don't hesitate to inform management
if you can't comfortably confront the other person on your own.
• Document the behavior. Take
notes describing each incident to keep details fresh in your memory. This will add credibility to your claim. And keep a
record of your conversations with management concerning the problem.
• Inform management.
Follow the procedure for reporting harassment to the proper person. Your own manager is usually the person to start the
process, but if your manager is the one harassing you, you'll have to go up the ladder to reach the right authority. Document
your efforts to report the behavior: dates, times, what was said, and so forth.
Mackay's Moral: If
you're being bullied, take the bull by the horns before there's a stampede.
Harvey Mackay is the
author of The New York Times No. 1 bestseller "Swim With the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive." Interview conducted by Taylor Korsak
Posted: 07/07/2011 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% 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% of cases (2007 WBI U.S.
Workplace Bullying Survey). Coworkers are perpetrators in 18% of incidents; 10% 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% 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% of targets have been diagnosed with depression
and 30% 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% quit (probably
for their health's sake). An additional 24% 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% 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% 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% 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. Contributor: Gary Namie http://www.humanresourcesiq.com/training-learning/articles/making-moves-toward-a-bully-free-workplace-an-inte/
Venutra Star Grand jury finds workplace bullying a problem within county government
- By John Scheibe
- Ventura County
Star
- Posted June 16, 2011 at 5:43 p.m
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. To be successful in
today's workplace, employees must know how to stand up for themselves, said Barbara Pachter, a Cherry Hill, N.J.-based
business etiquette expert and the author of the book "The Power of Positive Confrontation." "If
someone does not speak up for themselves, the bullying is far more likely to continue," Pachter said. But
standing up for oneself in a productive way means a worker must at once be assertive without being offensive, she said.
To do so, it helps to use "a lot of "I" statements, she said, as in, "I find that action or statement
offensive," rather than "you" statements, as in, "You are rude or abusive." 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.
State Bills Against Workplace Bullying Gain Traction
 Kathie Gant knew the relationship with her new boss was bad, but she didn't know how bad until the woman, a Maryland attorney,
hurled a bundle of pencils at Gant, her administrative assistant. "You just don't sharpen my pencils for me!"
the boss raged, punctuating each word with exaggerated enunciation and the zing of a pencil across the office toward Gant.
Months later, Gant was in a storage closet in the courthouse where she worked when the lights were shut off. "I
turned toward the door and she was standing there," Gant said of the supervisor. "I tried to say 'Hey, I'm in
here!'' Her boss stared back, shut the door, and locked it from the outside, trapping Gant in the pitch-black space.
After months of taunts and needling by her boss, Gant said she ended up on a psychiatrist's couch and nearly in a psych
ward.
With a quavering voice and tearful demeanor, Gant testified about her job situation during a legislative
hearing this month at the state Capitol as Maryland became one of the latest states to consider legislation against workplace
bullying. She recounted some details later in an interview.
Progress has been slow since California in 2003 became
the first state to introduce a "Healthy Workplace Bill," which would give employees legal protection against those
they say torment them at work (The measure died in committee). Since then, 19 other states have proposed similar legislation,
though none has passed it into law.
David C. Yamada, a law professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston
and the author of the Healthy Workplace Bill, said laws protect workers from abuse only on the basis of such things as race
or religion. Employees who do not fall into a protected category have no legal means of fighting bullying.
Opponents
of legislation say employees already are protected by anti-discrimination laws and workplace rules against abusive behavior.
They also say that human resources departments exist to help employees deal with workplace problems.
If all else
fails, bullied workers can bypass their bosses and seek help from higher-ranking supervisors, said Champe McCulloch, president
of the Maryland Assn. of General Contractors and a former human resources director at Verizon.
"There's
always an internal appeals process," said McCulloch, one of three lobbyists to speak against the bill on March 3 when
it was introduced to the state Senate's finance committee. "At some point, the employee has to screw his or her courage
to the sticking post and keep escalating the complaint up the management chain. I assure you ... at the senior management
ranks, somebody is going to take action."
But proponents say that alleged bullying that may have led to
highly publicized suicides last year — including that of a 52-year-old magazine editor who accused his boss of abusive
behavior, and a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was taunted by classmates — have focused attention on the problem and galvanized
efforts to pass legislation. So, too, has workers' frustration over several states' efforts to follow Wisconsin in curtailing
the power of unions representing public employees.
While the suicide of Phoebe Prince, the Massachusetts girl,
shed light on school bullying, Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash., said it underscored
the need for legislation at all levels.
"If it is not stopped at childhood, it clearly progresses into adulthood,"
Namie said, citing a 2010 study by the bullying institute and the Zogby International polling company that indicated 35%
of adults in the United States had been bullied at work. An additional 15% said they had witnessed workplace bullying. According
to the survey, most bullies are men and most victims are women, but both sexes report being bullied by male and female bosses,
and women are more likely to seek help from human resources.
"This year it's an especially uphill struggle,"
Namie said of workplace bullying legislation, citing "attacks on workers in general" in Wisconsin and other states
proposing new limits on labor unions.
But Namie said he believes New York, where the state Senate passed a bill
last year, is likely to get it signed into law in 2011.
"If New York becomes the first to pass it, that's
a bellwether state, so others would follow," said Namie, a social psychologist who founded the institute 14 years ago
with his wife, Ruth, after she experienced on-the-job bullying.
The Healthy Workplace Bill, used to guide individual
states' proposed legislation, forbids a health-harming "abusive work environment" and requires medical documentation
to prove worker claims of bullying.
Proponents of anti-bullying bills say this is among the measures that would
prevent a flood of lawsuits by disgruntled employees.
Yamada, the Healthy Workplace Bill author, said workers
face the challenge of trying to prove bullying, which generally falls short of physical assault and is Machiavellian and
difficult to identify. "I liken our understanding of workplace bullying to where we were with sexual harassment three
decades ago," Yamada said. "A lot of people have had to deal with this for years but didn't know what to call
it."
Bill backers say internal appeals processes often fall short, citing the case of Kevin Morrissey, who
was managing editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review magazine. Morrissey shot himself to death last June after relatives
and friends said his — and others' — repeated complaints about a bullying boss were ignored. The University
of Virginia, which publishes the magazine, said it had handled the complaints properly and that the manager could not be
blamed for Morrissey's death.
The recession has made it easier for bullies to carry on because jobs are scarce
and employees are reluctant to quit or to speak up and be seen as troublemakers, bill proponents say.
Gant, who
worked in a county courthouse, said that after a few months a new boss openly called her "stupid," humiliated
her at meetings, and sent out office e-mails that belittled her work.
Gant is still at a loss to explain the behavior.
Because much of the abuse was unseen by others — the pencil-throwing, the locking of the closet, the snide comments
— it was difficult to make others realize how bad it was, she said.
"She was an attorney. I never
felt she'd go that far," said Gant, who was haunted by the experience long after the woman's departure. One day, the
woman returned to the office for a brief visit. Gant hid in an office until she was gone.
Gant remained on the
job a few more months but has since taken another job that she enjoys. She said she also went back to school to study for
a doctorate and bolster her self-confidence, "so if I ever see her again, I'll be ready."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201103/should-workplace-bullying-be-illegal Should Workplace Bullying Be Illegal?
Resources for combating workplace bullying. Published
on March 10, 2011 I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I am not a recognized expert on bullying, but I do know about leadership and best organizational practices. As an I/O psychologist, I'm also aware of legal issues in the workplace and how they impact the practice of organizational psychology. So, it is often puzzling how legislation works, but it
is clear that the development of laws and regulations is often a haphazard process. Take workplace bullying. It constitutes a form of harassment, but bullying itself is not illegal. However, it is illegal to harass or discriminate
against someone who is in a protected group (i.e., harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, or religion). The problem is that bullying behavior often "flies under the radar screen" and often does not get defined
as "harassment." Here are some differences between harassment and bullying. You will see that the bully
is often able to keep the bullying from rising up to the harassment level - to keep from getting caught and punished. •
Harassment is often physical (e.g., unwanted touching, use of force) while bullying is psychological and verbal (often not
using cursing or obscene language, which would then cross the threshold into harassment). • Bullying targets
anyone, so many victims are not members of protected groups, or the bully and victim are from the same group. •
Harassment is often obvious and focused on the victim's group membership. Bullying is typically more subtle and begins as
mild criticism and then escalates or persists. Bullying results from the inadequacies of the bully. Typically, bullies
choose targets who threaten the bully's self-image, so targets are often highly competent, accomplished, popular employees. This actually makes it harder for the victim
to get authorities to take notice ("You are a successful worker, I don't see what the problem is..."). There
is some good news! To date, 20 states are exploring legislation that would put bullying on the legal radar screen. Much
of this legislation is focused on creating healthier - both physically and psychologically - workplaces. In the meantime,
it is important to educate people about workplace bullying and to fight back. Here are some resources: http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm http://capsbullypreventioncenter.com/2011/02/08/is-bullying-illegal/ http://www.californiasexualharassmentlawblog.com/2010/07/workplac... http://www.healthyworkplacebill.org
http://www.workplacebullying.org
http://www.bullyfreeworkplace.org
Office Bully Takes One on the Nose: Developing Law on Workplace Abuse
|
|
|
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202478811723&Office_Bully_Takes_One_on_the_Nose_Developing_Law_on_Workplace_Abuse&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
|
|
Jason
Habinsky and Christine M. Fitzgerald New York Law Journal January 21, 2011
|
|
|
For years the
law has been stacked against an employee claiming that he or she was abused or bullied by a co-worker. Generally, the law
offers no protection to such a victim as long as the alleged bully can show that his or her actions were not motivated by
the victim's status as a member of a protected class. Currently, there are no federal, state or local laws providing a cause
of action for an individual subject to a non-discriminatory abusive work environment. However, with bullying becoming front-page
news across the nation, it is just a matter of time before the law adapts. Since 2003, 17 states have considered legislation
designed to protect employees from workplace bullying. Indeed, this year New York came very close to a floor vote on a bill
that would provide a cause of action to an employee subjected to an abusive work environment. Proponents of anti-bullying
legislation contend that it is necessary given the prevalence of abusive conduct in the workplace. The proposed New York
legislation noted that "between sixteen and twenty-one percent of employees directly experience health endangering workplace
bullying, abuse and harassment" and that "[s]uch behavior is four times more prevalent than sexual harassment."
Employers, however, should be wary of such legislation. Anti-bullying legislation would allow employees having nothing
more than ordinary disputes and personality conflicts with their supervisors and co-workers to threaten their employers with
litigation. Surely some of these disputes would end up in court even though they wouldn't rise to the level of actionable
bullying. Moreover, it is hard to conceive how an anti-bullying statute could avoid being vague and overbroad when it comes
to defining what sort of behavior is unlawful. Existing Legal Framework Currently, employers
have little to worry about with respect to facing substantial liability as a result of workplace bullying. The existing legal
framework provides very limited recourse to an employee who is bullied at work. While some types of harassment are outlawed
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII's reach is narrow. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination
based on an individual's race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. It is well-settled that "Title VII does
not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace" but rather only discrimination because of race, sex,
color, religion or national origin. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). See also,
Marshall v. NYC Board of Elections, 322 Fed. Appx. 17, 18-19 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that plaintiff's "allegations
that her supervisor displayed a violent temper, stood over her with clenched fists on several occasions, disparaged her educational
background, and engaged in crass behavior are troubling. But Title VII is not a 'general civility code for the American workplace';
it prohibits only harassment that is discriminatory"); Bush v. Fordham University, 452 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y.
2006) (allegations of harassment included that co-worker altered plaintiff's timesheets, threatened to call security on her
for no reason, and failed to give her phone messages did not amount to actionable harassment); Jowers v. Lakeside Family
and Children's Services, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30977 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("It is quite clear that Plaintiff did not
enjoy the most cordial of relationships with either his co-worker or his supervisor. Such discord, however, is not a valid
ground to assert a hostile workplace claim under Title VII…Title VII is not designed to serve as a code of civility
to govern workplace professionalism"). Therefore, even where the workplace bully creates an uncomfortable or even unbearable
work environment for co-workers or subordinates, this will not violate Title VII unless such conduct is discriminatory.
Likewise, the extreme behavior that gives rise to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress does not encompass
most workplace bullying. In order to prove a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must prove
that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the conduct
caused severe emotional distress. Restatement (Second) of Torts §46. Courts have found that extreme or outrageous
conduct is "'so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community'…but does not extend to 'mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances,
petty oppressions, or other trivialities.'" Porter v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 2002 U.S. Dist LEXIS
20627, at 5-6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2002) (dismissing intentional infliction of emotional distress claim where employee claimed
that he was falsely accused of fraud and bullied and intimidated during questioning about the alleged fraud) (citations omitted).
Employees also have been unsuccessful in trying to fit their workplace bullying claims into a cause of action for constructive
discharge. For example, in Aldridge v. Daikin America Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27389, at 14 (N. D. Al. Oct.
6, 2005), the court found that plaintiff's "work conditions were not so intolerable that a reasonable person would have
resigned… [Plaintiff] may have been under a closer watch than other…employees. He also may have been the target
of negative comments… He was not, however, forced to resign from his job." A recent case from the Southern
District of New York illustrates the current law's limited use in the bullying context. In Mendez v. Starwood Hotels
& Resorts Worldwide Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107709 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010), the plaintiff alleged that his
employer discriminated against him based on his national origin, race and disability. The plaintiff also alleged that his
employer unlawfully retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity. At trial, the jury found for the employer on
all of the discrimination claims, but found in favor of the plaintiff on the retaliation claim and awarded the plaintiff $1
million in compensatory damages. The court, however, remitted the compensatory damages to $10,000, noting that there was no
evidence that the plaintiff suffered any significant damage as a result of the employer's actions. The court opined
that it was convinced that the jury felt sorry for the plaintiff—as, indeed, the court felt sorry
for the plaintiff. Mendez endured an abusive workplace and got very little sympathy or assistance from either his employer
or his union…. [A] non-discriminatory but uncivil workplace can certainly make a person miserable. The court is convinced
that the jurors concluded that Mendez was miserable at work, having found some basis on which to hold [the employer] liable,
awarded damages that were entirely out of proportion to any injury that was or could have been attributed to the retaliatory
[action]—but that were perfectly in proportion to the teasing and rudeness Mendez endured at the hands of his fellow
workers and chefs…. Mendez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at 63. Although the discrimination laws shielded
the employer from substantial liability in this case, had a law prohibiting workplace bullying existed, the employer would
have been on the hook for the $1 million in damages as evidenced by the court's sympathetic words regarding the plaintiff's
working conditions. Importantly, despite the absence of a cause of action for workplace bullying, the jury in the
Mendez case clearly tried to find a way to compensate the plaintiff for the bullying he endured. Likewise, in
Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. 2008), the Supreme Court of Indiana upheld a $325,000 jury verdict on
an assault claim where the plaintiff alleged that "the defendant, angry at the plaintiff about reports to hospital administration
about the defendant's treatment of other perfusionists, aggressively and rapidly advanced on the plaintiff with clenched fists,
piercing eyes, beet-red face, popping veins, and screaming and swearing at him." 883 N.E.2d at 794. Although the defendant
prevailed at trial with respect to the plaintiff's claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court opined
in dicta that workplace bullying could be a form of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 799. Legislation
Campaign Notably, the jury in the Raess case heard expert testimony on workplace bullying from Gary Namie,
the co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the eradication of workplace
bullying. The WBI's Legislative Campaign division focuses on enacting anti-bullying legislation state-by-state. The WBI recruits
state coordinators to introduce the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB), drafted by Suffolk University Professor of Law David Yamada,
to their local lawmakers. Thus, the campaign to pass an anti-bullying statute begins in each state with the same HWB language,
although local lawmakers regularly make changes to the HWB as it is introduced and works its way through the legislative process.1
The HWB provides legal redress for employees who are subjected to an abusive work environment, by allowing employees to
sue both their employer and the alleged bully for monetary damages. The WBI contends that the bill is employer friendly since
it sets a high standard for misconduct, requires proof of harm by a licensed health professional in order for an individual
to collect damages, and protects employers with internal correction and prevention mechanisms from liability. In 2003,
California became the first state to introduce some form of the HWB. Subsequently, anti-workplace bullying legislation has
been introduced in sixteen other states.2 In 2010, the New York State Senate passed the bill.3 However,
the New York Assembly Labor Committee stalled the passage of this ground breaking legislation when it voted to hold the bill,
rather than vote on it. The New York bill, A 5414B/S 1823-B, establishes a civil cause of action for employees who
are subjected to an abusive work environment. The bill defines an abusive work environment as "a workplace in which an
employee is subjected to abusive conduct that is so severe that it causes physical or psychological harm to such employee,
and where such employee provides notice to the employer that such employee has been subjected to abusive conduct and such
employer after receiving notice thereof, fails to eliminate the abusive conduct." Abusive conduct is defined
as "conduct, with malice, taken against an employee by an employer or another employee in the workplace, that a reasonable
person would find to be hostile, offensive and unrelated to the employer's legitimate business interests." The severity,
nature and frequency of the conduct should be considered in determining liability. The bill gives the following examples of
abusive conduct: • Repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets;
• Verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating; and
• The gratuitous sabotage or undermining of an employee's work performance. Factors from which malice can
be inferred include "outward expressions of hostility, harmful conduct inconsistent with an employer's legitimate business
interests, a continuation of harmful and illegitimate conduct after a complainant requests that it cease or displays outward
signs of emotion or physical distress in the face of the conduct, or attempts to exploit the complainant's known psychological
or physical vulnerability." The bill provides employers with an affirmative defense when the employer "exercised
reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the abusive conduct which is the basis of such cause of action and the plaintiff
unreasonably failed to take advantage of the appropriate preventive or corrective opportunities provided." The
affirmative defense is not available when the abusive conduct "culminates in a negative employment decision with regard
to the plaintiff." Further, employers are afforded the affirmative defense that "it made a negative employment decision
with regard to the plaintiff which is consistent with such employer's legitimate business interests." The bill also provides
employees with a cause of action for retaliation. Remedies for an employer found liable include injunctive relief,
reinstatement, removal of the offending party from the plaintiff's work environment, reimbursement for lost wages, medical
expenses, compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages and attorney's fees. Under the New York bill, an employer
found to have caused or maintained an abusive work environment that did not result in a negative employment decision cannot
be held liable for punitive damages and damages for emotional distress will be capped at $25,000. Therefore, it appears
that we may be on the cusp of a new era of legislation and legal precedent targeted at preventing and punishing workplace
bullying. Indeed, it seems inevitable that some form of the HWB will become law, whether in New York or elsewhere, and that
once the first state adopts an anti-bullying statute others will shortly follow. The Mendez case, discussed above,
should serve as a cautionary tale to employers about the potential for huge damage awards should such legislation be passed.
In the interim, employers are faced with significant uncertainty with respect to how to deal with workplace bullying. We suggest
that employers become proactive and take immediate steps to prevent workplace bullying. This will ensure that employers are
better prepared to defend against a cause of action for workplace bullying. Steps Employers Can
Take There are several steps that an employer can take to address workplace bullying. First, most employers' harassment
and discrimination policies do not cover workplace bullying. Such policies can be revised to prohibit harassment that is based
on factors other than those protected by federal, state and local discrimination laws. Codes of conduct and disciplinary policies
should likewise be revised. Employers can use the examples of abusive conduct set forth in the New York bill, and other
proposed legislation, as a guide for appropriate additions to these policies. Once these policies are revised, they
should be circulated to all employees. Furthermore, employers should take seriously any complaint by an employee who alleges
that he or she is the victim of workplace bullying. Such complaints should be investigated promptly and fully in the same
manner as other harassment complaints. Employers also should consider providing management training to supervisory employees
in order to cut down on complaints of bullying. Finally, employers should have a zero tolerance policy for workplace
bullying. There is no denying that most workplaces will have employees with different management styles and personalities,
and an ordinary dose of tension, stress and conflict. However, when conduct "crosses the line" and rises to the
level of bullying, supervisors or other employees who engage in bullying should immediately be disciplined. Employers should
seek the assistance of counsel in revising these policies and addressing any incidents of bullying, as well as to keep abreast
of the developing legislation and jurisprudence on workplace bullying. By taking proactive action, employers can minimize
the impact of the workplace bullying legislation that is bound to come to light in the near future, and in the meantime, maintain
a safer and more productive workplace. Jason Habinsky is counsel and Christine
M. Fitzgerald is an associate at Hughes Hubbard & Reed. Endnotes:
1. One notable exception to this occurred in Nevada. The bill introduced in Nevada in 2009 attempted to expand
the state's civil rights code to include abusive conduct as an illegal employment practice. 2. The 16
other states are Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. 3. The Illinois Senate passed a bill that would cover
only public sector employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
