Workplace Violence: Why Every State Must Adopt a Comprehensive Workplace Violence Prevention Law

[Excerpt] On August 24, 2012, a fired clothing designer gunned down a former co-worker outside the Empire State Building in New York City. The violent act was the culmination of built up tension between two former co-workers. Their anger towards one another had already resulted in at least one physical confrontation at work that led to both men filing police reports against each other. This case is an extreme example of workplace violence; however, workplace violence takes many forms and occurs with great regularity. Nearly 2 million employees are victims of workplace violence annually. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”) is not well-enforced and therefore fails to provide protection to employees subjected to workplace violence. This article explores what can be done to better protect workers at the state level. Part I of this article reviews the phenomenon of workplace violence. Part II discusses the lack of enforcement of the OSH Act as it relates to workplace violence. Part III of this article describes how some states choose to supplement the OSH Act with their own workplace violence laws. Finally, Part IV proposes that state legislatures should adopt a law in line with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) promulgated suggestions to provide legal protections for workers against workplace violence. Since Congress has yet to enact federal legislation that provides comprehensive workplace violence prevention, all states must enact legislation beyond the OSH Act to protect their workers

Physical and Psychological Violence at the Workplace

[Excerpt] Key findings Workplace violence is a social phenomenon of a certain magnitude. Overall, approximately 6% of European workers report having experienced some form of workplace violence, either physical or psychological, in the past 12 months. Non-physical forms of workplace violence (such as verbal abuse, threats of physical violence and unwanted sexual attention) experienced in the past month are reported by 12% of workers. Overall, levels of reported psychological violence are higher than those of physical violence. Of the diverse types of psychological violence, bullying or general harassment is more prevalent than sexual harassment. There are variations in exposure to workplace bullying between European countries. On the whole, exposure to bullying or harassment is comparatively greater in France and the Benelux countries, while reported levels are lower in southern and eastern European countries. The country variations of reported exposure may reflect different levels of awareness of the issue and willingness to report, as well as of actual occurrence. Major differences in the incidence of workplace violence are apparent across sectors. Exposure to all forms of violence tends to be concentrated in sectors with above-average contact with the public. The level of physical and psychological violence is particularly high in the health and social work sectors as well as in public administration. Women, particularly younger women, appear to be more subject to sexual harassment in the workplace than men. Both physical and psychological violence have serious implications for the health and well-being of workers. Workers exposed to psychosocial risks report significantly higher levels of work-related ill-health than those who are not. The most common reported symptoms are stress, sleeping problems, fatigue and depression. Exposure to psychological violence is correlated with higher-than-average rates of absenteeism. Although psychological violence is, by its nature, more cumulative in its impact than physical violence, its negative health effects measured in terms of absenteeism appear to be as detrimental as physical workplace violence. Work environment factors contribute to the incidence of workplace violence. For example, high levels of work intensity (tight deadlines, working at very high speed), a high number of work pace constraints and working in frequent contact with customers, clients and other non-colleagues are associated with a higher likelihood of being bullied

Officer-Involved Domestic Violence: The Mediating Factors

Domestic and family violence has been a critical issue in contemporary society. Efforts have been made in researching the causes, effects, and mediating factors of domestic violence in relation to the workplace. Studies demonstrate that a relationship between conflict crossing over from the work to the home environment exist. Additional studies demonstrate that domestic violence does affect the workplace; however, there is little to no scientific data on the reverse relationship. The reverse relationship regards whether the workplace affects the occurrence of domestic violence. This research paper will dive into this topic, and on the lack of data available. Supporting data will illustrate that factors from the workplace do affect the likelihood of domestic and/or family violence occurring in police families. Not considering or viewing police family violence as an effect of workplace factors is shortsighted, and it demonstrates the need for education on this topic. With new data, comes new policies and implications that are reconfigurations of the existing policies. There is a need to bring this subject to light, and in view of the law enforcement community

The Organizational Model for Workplace Security

The definition of workplace violence is a “any act of harassment (including sexual harassment), intimidation, threat, rape or homicide that takes place at a victim’s place of employment.” When the statistics for workplace violence are looked at, it is easily understood why workplace security is rapidly becoming a problem for many organizations. The situation that provokes workplace violence does not necessarily have to start in the workplace or and the act of violence does not necessarily have to happen in the workplace for organizations to be concerned. Many organizations are just learning that violence can occur anywhere at anytime and they must be prepared to cope with the situation. This means they must take a look at their preparedness and decide what they need to do to not only increase preparedness but also to understand what procedures they do day to day that might affect a potentially violent situation. Organizations need to ask tough questions as to their hiring procedures, termination procedures, and security procedures. In today’s society, this increases from the aspect of global terrorism and how well are they prepared for the potential of a terrorist attack. Security in the workplace will continue to be a concern but by following specific procedures and processes the risk of a situation happening can be significantly reduced.workplace violence, workplace security, organizational security, domestic violence, spillover violence, workplace threats, violence prevention, employee violence

Workplace Violence Against Government Employees, 1994-2011

[Excerpt] The higher rates of workplace violence in the government were partly due to the high rates of workplace violence attributed to law enforcement and security employees (figure 2). The rate of workplace violence for law enforcement and security employees was a high of 672.3 per 1,000 in 1994, declining to 109.3 in 2011. These law enforcement and security occupations accounted for over half of the violence committed against government workers and were concentrated most heavily in state, county, and local government. The estimates of nonfatal violent victimization in the workplace against government employees are based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes against persons age 12 or older, reported and not reported to the police, from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. In this report, nonfatal workplace violence includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault (serious violent offenses), and simple assault against employed persons age 16 or older that occurred while at work or on duty. Information on workplace homicide in this report was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) (see Methodology). Workplace homicide includes the homicide of employed victims age 16 or older who were killed while at work or on duty and excludes death by accident. Trend estimates of nonfatal workplace violence are based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. For example, estimates reported for 2011 represent the average estimates for 2010 and 2011. For some tables in this report, the focus is on the single 10-year aggregate period from 2002 through 2011. These approaches increase the reliability and stability of estimates, which facilitates comparisons over time and between subgroups. Trend estimates of workplace homicide are based on a single most recent year estimates. For example, estimates of workplace homicide for 2011 represent the estimate for 2011 only

Workplace Violence and Security: Are there Lessons for Peacemaking?

Workplace violence has captured the attention of commentators, employers, and the public at large. Although statistically the incidents of workplace homicide and assault are decreasing, public awareness of the problem has heightened, largely through media reports of violent incidents. Employers are exhorted to address the problem of workplace violence and are offered a variety of programs and processes to prevent its occurrence. Many techniques, however, conflict with values that are critical to achieving sustainable peace. We focus on types of workplace violence that are triggered by organizational factors. From among the plethora of recommendations, we identify those responses that are most and least consistent with positive peace. We find that processes that promote privacy, transparency, and employee rights hold the most promise for peacemaking. We submit that such structures and processes can be transportable beyond the workplace to promote peace locally, nationally, and globally.workplace violence, employee rights, sustainable peace, and corporate governance

Workplace violence in Queensland, Australia: the results of a comparative study

[Abstract]: This paper presents the results on workplace violence from a larger study undertaken in 2004. Comparison is made with the results of a similar study undertaken in 2001. The study involved the random sampling of 3000 nurses from the Queensland Nurses’ Union’s membership in the public (acute hospital and community nursing), private (acute hospital and domiciliary nursing) and aged care sectors (both public and private aged care facilities). The self-reported results suggest an increase in workplace violence in all three sectors. Whilst there are differences in the sources of workplace violence across the sectors, the major causes of workplace violence are: clients/patients, visitors/relatives, other nurses, nursing management and medical practitioners. Associations were also found between workplace violence and gender, the designation of the nurse, hours of employment, the age of the nurse, morale and perceptions of workplace safety. Whilst the majority of nurses reported that policies were in place for the management of workplace violence, these policies were not always adequate

The Organizational Model for Workplace Security

The definition of workplace violence is a “any act of harassment (including sexual harassment), intimidation, threat, rape or homicide that takes place at a victim’s place of employment.” When the statistics for workplace violence are looked at, it is easily understood why workplace security is rapidly becoming a problem for many organizations. The situation that provokes workplace violence does not necessarily have to start in the workplace or and the act of violence does not necessarily have to happen in the workplace for organizations to be concerned. Many organizations are just learning that violence can occur anywhere at anytime and they must be prepared to cope with the situation. This means they must take a look at their preparedness and decide what they need to do to not only increase preparedness but also to understand what procedures they do day to day that might affect a potentially violent situation. Organizations need to ask tough questions as to their hiring procedures, termination procedures, and security procedures. In today’s society, this increases from the aspect of global terrorism and how well are they prepared for the potential of a terrorist attack. Security in the workplace will continue to be a concern but by following specific procedures and processes the risk of a situation happening can be significantly reduced.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39914/3/wp529.pd

Workplace Violence Prevention

[Excerpt] How well is your workplace addressing violence prevention?* Let’s start with your workplace’s definition: “workplace violence” brings to mind fights, physical or sexual attacks, murder, property damage, or arson; and certainly acts of terrorism. Does your policy include the unauthorized possession of firearms, explosives, or other weapons at work? Does your program’s policy cover verbal as well as physical issues? OSHA and NIOSH have recommended including verbal harassment and threats -- face-to-face, in writing, or electronically – as these are not only problems in themselves, but also could escalate to other forms of violence

Workplace violence experienced by nurses in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre

Lately, increasing workplace violence is a problem that requires serious attention by the management of the healthcare sector. This study was carried out to examine workplace violence experienced by nurses in the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre. It aimed to identify the category of nursing staff who formed the highest number of victims, the perpetrators and the common types of workplace violence. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study carried out over a three month period on 55 nurses who had participated voluntarily in this study. The demographic data and data on the violent incident were collected by using a 21-item questionnaire. The reliability and validity with Cronbach’s alpha was 0.872. Information on the most common types of violence, victims and the perpetrators was also collected. The study revealed that workplace violence among the nursing staff was 3.7% with an average of 1.2% being abused per month and one nurse being abused every other day. The study also revealed that the staff nurses were the most common victims and the perpetrators were mainly the patients (40.6%) and the patients’ relatives (37.5%). The most common forms of violence were verbal abuse (31.9%) and verbal threat (23.7%). Physical violence was experienced by 44.4% of the victims. These results suggest that workplace violence is a serious problem which should be addressed in order to create a safe environment for the nurses