By the way, Bill Whitmore has a new book out...
From Security Info Watch by way of ASIS Security Management Daily:
"AlliedBarton chairman looks at how to stem tide of workplace violence
by Steve Lasky, Editor-in-Chief, Security Technology Executive magazine
Sept. 21, 2011, Orlando, Fla. -- Distraught employees are injuring or killing co-workers and supervisors at an alarming rate. Customer rage is at an all-time high. Domestic violence has spilled over into the workplace. And it’s not that these incidents are getting more media coverage – the Center for Disease Control has officially classified workplace violence as a national epidemic."
My reply (to the comments section and in an email):
But Workplace Homicide Is At An All Time Low
Steve,
I'm not sure which BLS report you or Mr. Whitmore read but according to http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0008.pdf workplace homicide numbers are at the lowest point since they were first tracked in 1992. Even if they weren't your unusually lurid opening paragraph fails to mention that fully 75% of all homicides at work are perpetrated by outsiders during robberies of retail and service establishments. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/work_hom.pdf Death at the hands of coworkers (and former coworkers), clients (including patients), and family and friends (especially including estranged abusers) represents the remaining 25% of the 542 workplace murders in 2009. Is that too many? Absolutely. There are certainly many important issues to resolve. Robbery prevention and survival training, cab driver safety, assault prevention in healthcare and social services settings, humane management practices, prohibitions against horseplay, zero tolerance for bullying and all other forms of harassment, quality mental health benefits, screening and treatment for depression, and suicide prevention are elements an organization may draw upon to create a workplace violence prevention and response program that meets its business needs. Hyperbole and hysteria have no place in the security professional’s approach to this important issue.
UPDATE: By the way, I'd appreciate it if someone would show me precisely where the CDC has "officially classified workplace violence as a national epidemic."
All that said, while I disdain fear-based marketing, I do look forward to seeing what Potential: Workplace Violence Prevention and Your Organizational Success has to say, especially if our C-level bosses and clients are going to be reading it.
REUPDATE: My review of Potential will be published in the April 2012 issue of The Workplace Violence Prevention eReport.
"When all you have is a hammer all your problems look like nails..."
I've discussed the sales of security hardware before. Here's an excellent little essay on the balanced use of surveillance cameras. The author not only "gets it," he puts it right through the X-ring.
"Assume your organization is more interested in prevention than apprehension.
This is the private sector security model as contrasted with the public safety model. The latter has a societal objective of chasing down offenders to capture and punish them and, by doing so, demonstrate to society at large that crime does not pay.
[Incidentally, this public safety bias limits the ability of most police to operate surveillance cameras solely for prevention. Their invariable tendency is to use them more for investigation. Also, because they hired on to chase malefactors, watching cameras or defending assets are unattractive to cops in their prime.]
In the context of running a business or even a public institution, however, few organizations can afford the resources for this hunt. Instead, their security functions earn their keep by preventing losses – which cost significantly less in time and staffing than trying to shadow the responsibilities of a police force without the same powers of arrest or investigation."
Be sure to read the entire essay by Nick Catrantzos, Adjunct Professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who also writes at his All Secure blog and No Dark Corners website. His Master's thesis, No Dark Corners: Defending Against Insider Threats to Critical Infrastructure (not free) was published as a CRISP report (free) by ASIS International. Nick seems to be a very interesting fellow.
Homeland Security Watch knocks another one out of the park.
Photo credit, Sam Magraby at the ever excellent Photos8.com
aka Pasture to Plate...
"Food Defense" is an important issue and will only grow more so as the planet becomes warmer and more crowded. I know several security professionals who protect the food supply at different points in the chain. The chain's links form an interrelated web which includes finance, environmental concerns - land, air, and water, energy, preventing the spread of plant and animal diseases, harvest, transportation, preparation, logistics, and consumption.
"Food and Agriculture" is a DHS Critical Infrastructure. Otherwise, in the US the FDA and the USDA "share" jurisdiction. Our very own University of Minnesota hosts the National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD).
Different entities have staked claims to several terms which are no longer synonymous. "Food Security" is applied to the certainty of regular access to nutrition. "Food Safety" has to do with preventing unintended contamination or spoilage of food from field to fork.
NOTE: This was my reply in a LinkedIn thread started by a peer from India. It's also letting me move Michelle's wild-eyed visage down the page.
Interesting development: The OP on the LinkedIn thread is interested in the impact of Food Security as it is currently used - equitable and reliable distribution of nutrition - as a security issue. My comment:
If you are in fact talking about the impact of food security - the reliable and equitable distribution of food to all persons - or the lack of it, as a contributor to social order or disorder then you are operating at a very thoughtful level indeed. We can see the role corrupt governments and local warlords play in leveraging the impact of of drought and famine to their own purposes. We can see the effects of NGOs attempting to serve those in need despite massive hurdles. In the long term there are land use, water supply, air quality, investment, environmental, and technological concerns for governments as well. Most of these issues are addressed at the level of transnational, regional, and national governments. Are you raising awareness of a future opportunity or challenge for private sector interests or proposing a positive role for private security professionals? Please tell us more.
Yes, this is what we talk about, and the way we talk about it, at work...
On a quick first pass CPL 02-01-052 "Enforcement Procedures for Investigating or Inspecting Workplace Violence Incidents" confirms that it constitutes what OSHA regards as a "significant change," "the first instruction on the enforcement procedures for investigations and inspections that occur as a result of workplace violence incident(s)." It can be a useful document to those building or maintaining WPV prevention and response programs as one can reverse engineer OSHA instructions to refine the structure of the recordkeeping elements of a program. This directive specifically and correctly focuses on late night retail and healthcare & social service settings.
The document outlines OSHA's "criteria for initiating inspections."
a. Known risk factors to consider, listed by NIOSH in its report NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin #57: Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies (1996).
b. Evidence of employer and/or industry recognition of the potential for workplace violence in OSHA-identified high risk industries, such as healthcare and social service settings and late night retail (See Section X, C, 1 and 2.).
c. Feasible abatement methods exist to address the hazard(s). [Appendix B]
"Enforcement Procedures for Investigating or Inspecting Workplace Violence Incidents” offers several scenarios where investigation and enforcement are appropriate, notably in healthcare and late night retail settings. Strikingly, it describes a case of acquaintance on employee violence (Type IV) as not meeting any of the three criteria for enforcement. It also describes a shooting of employees at a financial services company as meeting some but not necessarily all of the enforcement criteria.
I think security practitioners need to be conversant with CPL 02-01-052 because it is the guidance OSHA inspectors will use to determine whether a company that experiences workplace violence injury or death should be subject to enforcement action. It provides some very interesting clarifications under which OSHA investigators might invoke the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1). It describes a specific obligation for employers in late night retail and healthcare & social service settings. It does not seem to create specific obligations for other industries, but it is an interesting change of which all security professionals should be aware.
Posts
