AP Photo
In today’s business world most large organizations have documented policy describing standard procedure for typical workplace incidents. Most human resources generalists can refer to the employee handbook for guidance, these policies are created by experts to maximize employee productivity and minimize legal exposure to the company.
But what happens when the incident isn’t typical? Workplace violence is happening with increasing frequency, homicide is the second-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States, according the Bureau of Labor’s revised report from 2007. Stories about employees losing their job only to return with a firearm for retribution are, unfortunately, not uncommon. In most cases, employers have little or no procedure to follow when violence erupts beyond calling security or the police. Better-prepared companies may have established an escape route. Some might even conduct a drill once or twice each year. However, very few have anything in place to deal directly with the violence. How do you reason with someone who is pointing a gun at you? What do your employees do when the escape route is blocked? Do they know other hiding places? If they are confronted with the shooter do they know what, or perhaps more importantly, what not to say?
These are reasonable questions that employers need to be asking themselves - not only for the purpose of limiting legal exposure, but, much more importantly, for the safety of their staff. The laws in your area may not require a company to see the foreseeable risk; however, that does not relieve a company from its responsibility to provide a safe working environment. In nearly every case of extreme workplace violence, there were many signs that, if someone on staff had been properly trained, would have been noticed and something could have been done to avoid a violent episode. Pending signs of crisis can include hypersensitiveness to criticism, increased argumentative/aggressive behavior, obsession with co-worker, supervisor or an employee grievance, Employees with the potential for workplace violence may also make statements about the “place burning down”, or “this is why I need a gun” that can be masked and easily misinterpreted as frustration or even humor.
Most employers do not want to acknowledge that violence could happen on their premises or that the chances of it happening are getting worse. However, the facts show exactly that and without addressing the issue, it is just the luck-of-the-draw where it happens next and how many people are hurt.
Comments
It's a threat that many choose not to recognize but may very well occur and prove fatal. Train your staff! A well integrated policy should always include staff education as the crux of enforcement.
www.proactive-resolutions.com
Violence isn't the answer to violence. Studies show that the kind of people who come into a place of businness and start shooting, are victims themselves. They are held captive to the psychological abuse that was put upon them as a child. The last thing this kind of person needs is someone trying to kill them! They need to be talked down and given help in the form of counseling. It may take a tough guy to shoot a gun, but it takes a real man to be the voice of reason.
Soccer Mom,
There is this thing called free will. If someone chooses, thus exercising free will, to bring violence into the workplace, especially if one is talking deadly force, then they have opened themselves up to the consequences of their actions. They have made a choice that will likely end with them dead or in prison, it is just a question as to how many victims, who were not given a choice, will likewise be in the morgue.
You stated something about it taking a tough guy to shoot a gun. The problem with that line of thinking is that it is patently untrue. The historical development of the firearm, and especially the repeating firearm, too the reins of power out of the hands of a minority class and allowed the majority to be equal. Please note that in the middle ages the ruling classes were also the warrior classes who were able to devote many hours to training how to kill other human beings. Without a firearm you can be victimized by anyone bigger or stronger than
(CONT.)
you. If you have a firearm, and the training and will to use it, you are on an equal playing field with those larger, and/or stronger than you. The alleged old west saying is " God created mankind, Sam Colt made them equal."
Mr Prawdzick,
At first I cringed when you called workplace violence an occupational hazard. While I admit that there are certain professions where this is true, law enforcement, pizza delivery, and convenience store clerk come to mind, I had unpleasant visions of where this type of definition will likely lead.
However, upon deeper reflection I decided that perhaps you were on to something. Take the first of the professions I listed above. If we get OSHA to require the same type of equipment, and training in said equipment, as is required for members of law enforcement that could actually serve to reduce the incidences of violence in the workplace. Sadly I do not see that happening anytime soon. In fact I expect the opposite tact to be taken which will just result in more violence in gun free / victim disarmament zones.
The truth is that if one desires peace one must prepare for war.
The meek do inherit the Earth, at least a 6'X3' section of the Earth.
I didn't interrupt this article as one has to have a gun to protect one self it’s more about addressing skills that would help prevent the escalation of deadly violence.
Pete,
The problem is that verbal skills do not always work. What this article is about is developing the skills and a workable plan to reduce violence in the workplace and to resolve it when it happens.
The problem with taking force out of the equation is that sometimes force is the only acceptable response.
The workplace shootings that I am aware of, I'm focusing on that smaller population as it is more widely reported on, have all ended due to a firearm. The firearm in question may have been in the perpetrators hands, in the hands of an armed citizen, or in the hands of a cop. The problem is that they all entailed significant loss of innocent life.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that there is a need for people to learn how to defuse situations. In fact I believe that force is the final option that should be employed. However, it is and needs to be an option.
The airlines got smart allowing pilots to carry sidearms, schools should be next, just think, do you want someone who is not compitent to handel a gun to be teaching your children. Incompedent behavior is not isolated to just one thing
Working in a high stress, fast faced, distracting environment; I have discovered that my defense and environmental tendencies lead me to take precautions that I feel most people overlook. In my previous workplace we neither had electronic locks, passive layered doors or pass keys. In my current environment, even with those measures in place a disgruntled employee or ex-employee could easily bypass these measures. Once the bullets start to fly, negotiations are over so the only thing to be certain of is that I am not in a location where the first bullets will fly towards me. Layer myself away from entrances and exits, having a movement plan of my own, knowing which cabinets are full and therefore offer a modest degree of cover, and knowing how to quickly move from photocopier to copier are all office based tactics that can keep you alive in a workplace shootout. In a location where I am disarmed, they seem to be the logical tactics. I have to wonder about non shooting related viol
When I wrote this article my intent was to highlight proactive training in the workplace. We need to convince business owners that training their staff how to recognize pre-crisis behavior is one way we might be able to prevent the violence. Once the shooting starts the talking stops. I think that would be a great future article for discussion.
The problem is that without a layered response plan, all of the pre-crisis recognition training in the world will just let the employees know that they are about to die.
Yes, it is important. Heck, I feel it's vital as long as it is taught by the right people. Unfortunately, the vast majority of my experience with people in the psych fields does not instill confidence in me. Most of them do not understand anger, have no clue about rage, and tend to believe that talking can 'sooth the savage "beast"'. Oh, and then there's the subset that believes we just need to teach people to not be violent.
What about providing outlets for anger? Sometimes these incidents are a result of people feeling completely cornered and that they have no recourse. In many large companies people are not treated as humans. Perhaps just treating them with respect would reduce some of these problems.
Could be an interesting case study, respect for employees vs violent incidents.
This article hits on some good points, there is definitely a need for proactive training in the workplace and also in ones every day personal life, if properly trained one might notice and possibly avoid an episode and if one violence episode is avoided that's well worth the training.
It's about time someone started preaching these words. Hopefully the right people will start listening!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!