WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

September 4, 2000
		Three experts discuss violence in the workplace and a new study that claims "going postal" is a myth.

Aug. 10, 2000: United Airlines suffers delays and labor problems. Aug. 8, 2000: The Verizon strike. June 12, 2000: An ergonomically correct workplace. June 2, 2000: The job market for recent graduates. May 10, 2000: The less-familiar side of work in high-tech California. March 22, 2000: The impact of the Boeing strike. Jan. 17, 2000: A safe home office. Dec. 30, 1999: New opportunities for disabled workers. Oct. 12, 1999: Labor's impact on presidential politics. Sept. 6, 1999: An overworked America? Sept. 7, 1998: Robert Pinsky reads a poem on Labor Day. Sept. 3, 1997: The state of the American workplace. Sept. 2, 1996: The origins of Labor Day. Browse the NewsHour's complete coverage of Business and Economy.     National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Society for Human Resource Management Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations	TERENCE SMITH: Joining me now for a discussion of workplace violence is Joseph Califano, who chaired the Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace that came out with the new report. He's also president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University and former Health Education and Welfare Secretary to President Jimmy Carter; and with Michael Losey, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, which represents human resource executives worldwide; and to Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University. Welcome to all three of you. Joseph Califano, let me begin with you and ask you, in this report you concluded that that phrase that joined the lexicon, that notion of "going postal" as in going ballistic, was a bum rap, is that right? JOSEPH CALIFANO: Going postal was a bum rap and a myth and nonsense really. We found that postal workers were no more likely than workers in the national work force to physically assault, sexually harass, or verbally abuse their coworkers. We also found, indeed, that postal workers were only one third as likely as those in the national work force to be victims of homicide at work and, indeed, that postal workers, when you look at homicides by occupations, working in the Postal Service is about as safe as it gets. It's almost as safe as being in the professions. The only industries safer are construction and manufacturing, in terms of homicides. TERENCE SMITH: Michael Losey, does that square with what you know in the industry and as a sort of subsidiary question, is there, in fact, more violence in the work place now, or is it perhaps just reported more? MICHAEL LOSEY: It justifies a lot of attention. I agree with the study that just came out. We've known it; we've studied this for years for the Postal Service. We know that's a much better place to work than what most people think. TERENCE SMITH: Than the headlines would have suggested - MICHAEL LOSEY: Absolutely. And second of all, we surveyed early, like 1993, and found that our HR directors in the workplace were able to report 48 percent of the crime that they have witnessed at their job sites in the prior three years. We surveyed again in 1999; it had gone up to 57 percent. So it has increased, or at least the acknowledgment of it. TERENCE SMITH: Well, that's my question.
	No place for violence
	MICHAEL LOSEY: Yes, sir. There's great sensitivity. There is really no place for workplace violence. People should not go to work to worry about being in a hostile environment. The number one requirement for an employer is to provide a safe workplace, number one. TERENCE SMITH: Kate Bronfenbrenner, if there is, in fact, more violence and more is being reported, any idea why? KATE BRONFENBRENNER: Well, I think we've reached a time in the American workplace where workers feel like they're being pushed harder and harder to work longer and faster, and they feel like they're getting less of a share of the economic boom than their managers. And we saw this in the study that Joseph Califano and others did, because it showed that although postal workers are not at any greater risk for workplace violence than other workers, they're very unhappy with their work. They do believe that postal management doesn't care about them; they don't trust them; and they are not happy in their jobs. I think what we find is American workers are being pushed to the limit; they're being pushed to work more overtime; they're being pushed to produce more. And American employers have to take responsibility for pushing their workers over the edge; and that workplace violence is a fundamental human rights issue no different than other fundamental health and safety issues. TERENCE SMITH: Joe Califano, when you conducted this survey, did you, in fact, find that tension or greater demands in the workplace are a contributing factor? JOSEPH CALIFANO: We did. Let me just -- I think that's a factor, but I would note with respect to postal workers we did find that they stay in their jobs. They're twice as likely to work for the Postal Service for 10 years - the national work force ought to stay to work for their employer for 10 years. And they're -- while, yes, they do have questions about lack of confidence in some respects in management -- they are better able to cope; they are less stressed in their job than people in the national work force. TERENCE SMITH: Right. But your survey went beyond - JOSEPH CALIFANO: Yes we did. In order to compare the postal work force with the national work force we did an incredibly sophisticated survey of 3,000 workers randomly selected in the national work force. And what we found was that one in five workers - or I'm sorry - five percent of the workers - one in twenty workers is physically assaulted, was physically assaulted in the last year. And we asked specific questions: Were you hit, did somebody throw something at you? We didn't say: Were you physically assaulted? Secondly, that one in six workers was sexually harassed in the national work force, and, again, we asked specific questions: Did somebody fondle you? Did somebody make sexual advances to you, and what have you? And thirdly, that a third of all workers were verbally abused in the work force. Now, verbal abuse was the hardest standard. We did give examples of threatening and intimidation and what have you. But it is - in fairness - you must remember that what may be a put-down to a worker may be a manager's way, he feels, he is inspiring that worker to do more. But there's no question that the commission found an unacceptable level of violence in the work force. Now, the American workplace is not a cocoon. There's a lot of violence in American society. But I think a lot can be done as both the other panelists here indicated and should be done in order to reduce violence.
	Discouraging violence
	TERENCE SMITH: Well, that's a question. Michael Losey, if there is this high level that Joe Califano is talking about, are companies doing what they should be doing to discourage it? MICHAEL LOSEY: Yes. But we must deal with the facts. In fact, when you look at the nature of the problem, 41 percent is verbal threats - doesn't even involve touching, pushing, shoving, altercations. 19 percent is that. So 60 percent of it - only 2 percent is stabbings, is gun use, that type of violence. And then you look at the reasons, when you go back and say how did this happen. 55 percent are personality conflicts - between peers frequently. It's not the supervisors that think: I'm going to get that person. In fact, 36 percent were related to family matters, and on frequent occasions workplace violence involves another person outside the workplace, and sometimes a family… matter. Work related stress was only 24 percent of the recorded instances that we saw. TERENCE SMITH: Kate Bronfenbrenner, is this - to you - a reflection of the often-lamented lack of a civil society? I mean, is this part of today's culture? KATE BRONFENBRENNER: I think it's less a representation of a lack of civil society than a lack of democracy and voice in the workplace. I think where workers feel like they have a voice, in a unionized workplace for example, and the union - management is listening to the union and responding to grievances - then these tensions get resolved. Or if there is some violence, the worker is able to go to management through the union and get the issue resolved. I think we have, because we have lower union density, because unions haven't been as powerful, we haven't been able to take on an issue like this and resolve it and make clear that we should have zero tolerance of workers going to work to get stabbed, or going to work to get spit at, or going to work to get verbally harassed. TERENCE SMITH: Joe Califano, we should mention that while the commission was commissioned by the Postal Service, you found some shortcomings in terms of management's dealings with its employees. JOSEPH CALIFANO: Well, we did. We found shortcomings both on management's side and on the union's side. I mean, there's no question but that the - and the Postmaster General in reviewing the report and our discussions with him recognizes those shortcomings. For example, there has to be, as Kate just said, there has to be much better communication between management and workers. We urge that the union be involved in the employee assistance program, for example, because there was suspicion that the employee assistance program, which is designed to help workers with substance abuse problems and other problems, could be used as a disciplinary tool among a significant proportion of the workers. So there are things that management can do. We thought that on the whole there's a grievance procedure in the Postal Service that really is abominable. To put it in perspective there were about 126,000 grievances in the Postal Service; there were 6300 that went to arbitration a couple of years ago. In the auto industry, about half the size, over the past year only 11 matters went to arbitration. So there's a lot of tension there. They're also - the pay system is such that managers are rewarded in the Postal Service for their individual performance - bonuses or what have you - routine performance - but union employees are not. Now, that's something the unions have to agree to and the managers have to agree to. There we found something of a difference between the workers themselves and the union leaders. The workers themselves - the union workers - would like to have some rewards on the basis of their individual performance as, for example, the United Auto Workers now has profit sharing just the way the managers do in the auto industry. So there's a lot to be done.
	Corrective action
	TERENCE SMITH: Michael Losey, is there evidence, as you sometimes read that technology, computers, tend to isolate workers, does that contribute in any way to tensions in the workplace? MICHAEL LOSEY: I would not say that that's where we should be targeting our corrective action. The corrective action starts with make sure you know who you're hiring because people like this have usually done things like this before. If you're not reference checking, then the very first thing you've done is wrong. You must know, you have that responsibility. JOSEPH CALIFANO: That is a very important point, Terry, and that's a very important point. We found in the Postal Service that, for example, with respect to several of the homicides, had the Postal Service known about the prior conduct of some of those employees, those employees would not have been hired; they would have been alerted to the danger of violence. TERENCE SMITH: Right. And I think Michael Losey is saying they should have known. MICHAEL LOSEY: They should have known. TERENCE SMITH: Or employers generally should know. JOSEPH CALIFANO: They should know. There are serious issues though that I'm sure he'd agree: You run into issues of privacy, getting information about military records and careers, getting information from private employers. There's a great reluctance to give specific information on that now because of fear of lawsuits. MICHAEL LOSEY: There's legislation in many states now providing a safe harbor for a fair and accurate reference where an employer does not know…. And my position is truth is an absolute defense. TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Kate Bronfenbrenner, a final word from you. When you've listened to all this, do you think it's going in the right direction? KATE BRONFENBRENNER: Well, I think we need to first accept that workplace violence is rising and we have to do something about it. And we have to make sure that employers are held responsible to make workplaces safe not just from worker to fellow worker, but from worker to client so that workers are not ever left alone. For instance, in the retail establishments - alone at night - so they're vulnerable or in service occupations - and make sure that the victims aren't blamed and that policies are set and structures are provided so workers feel safe going to their employer and speaking out about the problem in the workplace. TERENCE SMITH: Okay. I think we have to leave it there. Thank you all three very much.