More On Violence In The Workplace

As you know, I've been musing on the idea of breaking down the workplace violence data into less alarming yet more useful chunks...

I wouldn't be averse to breaking apart the categories. Doing so would help us put the different elements of the problem in better perspective, allow our profession to develop a variety of effective preventatives, and encourage firms to tailor their responses to their risks.  Let's walk through the numbers while I explain.

Using the BLS final numbers from 2009 we see that “assaults and violent acts” is the second leading cause of death in the workplace but, unbeknownst to many with strong opinions on this topic, this category includes both the 542 homicides and 263 suicides that occurred that year.

TOTAL 4,551
Transportation accidents 1,795
Assaults and violent acts 837
Contact with objects and equipment 741
Falls 645
Exposure to harmful substances or environments 404
Fires and explosions 113
Other events or exposures 16

If we break “homicide” and “suicide” out of assaults and violent acts in 2009 then homicide falls to fourth place and suicide becomes the sixth place hazard.

TOTAL 4,551
Transportation accidents 1,795
Contact with objects and equipment 741
Falls 645
Homicides 542
Exposure to harmful substances or environments 404
Suicides 263
Fires and explosions 113
Other events or exposures 16

According to the BLS between 1997-2010 75% of all workplace homicides are perpetrated by criminals, many while engaged in armed robbery (Type I). The remaining 25% are divided between clients, customers, and patients (7%); coworkers and former coworkers (10%); and family, friends, and associates (8%). Offenders in these categories are Types II, III, and IV, respectively.  If we regroup the 2009 homicides according offender types then the 124 cases of what most people think of when the phrase “workplace violence” is used (or misused) assume their proper place in relation to other workplace hazards.

TOTAL 4,551
Transportation accidents 1,795
Contact with objects and equipment 741
Falls 645
Homicides – Criminal (Type I) 407
Exposure to harmful substances or environments 404
Suicides 263
Homicides – Types II, III, and IV 124
Fires and explosions 113
Other events or exposures 16

Once broken down to this level of granularity I propose the solutions our profession needs to continue to develop at least four in number.  We could break down the homicide into the three remaining types but that does not seem to illuminate any more solutions.

A) Robbery prevention and survival training
B) Police and security officer training, equipment, and procedures
C) Suicide prevention efforts
D) Workplace violence prevention and intervention program

There is still plenty of work for security professionals (and our peers in HR, EHS, and Legal) to do in this area.  All forms of workplace violence - threats, assaults, injuries, homicides, and suicides - remain important issues to address.  We do our profession no service by using the aggregated statistics to motivate our peers, employers, or clients unless the businesses in question are enterprises with known high risk factors. Sooner or later the decision makers will catch those who rely on hyperbole to move their programs forward.

Sources:

Fatal occupational injuries, comparison of 2009 preliminary and updated, selected characteristics http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised09.pdf

Using percentages from Occupational homicides by selected characteristics, 1997-2010 http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/work_hom.pdf

Photo credit: Sam Mugraby at Photos8 http://www.photos8.com/view/bullet_on_desk-normal.html

Half A Loaf Is Better Than None

I guess...

ASIS and SHRM have just completed a collaboration to create the ANSI Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention ASIS/SHRM WVPI.1-2011 American National Standard

According to ASIS:

This Standard provides an overview of policies, processes, and protocols that organizations can adopt to help identify and prevent threatening behavior and violence affecting the workplace, and to better address and resolve threats and violence that have actually occurred. This Standard describes the personnel within organizations who typically become involved in prevention and intervention efforts; outlines a proactive organizational approach to workplace violence focused on prevention and early intervention; and proposes ways in which an organization can better detect, investigate, manage, and - whenever possible - resolve behavior that has generated concerns for workplace safety from violence. The Standard also describes the implementation of a Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention Program, and protocols for effective incident management and resolution.

I've been looking forward to the results of this collaboration so I read the standard with enthusiasm.  Having done so I've come away with half a loaf, so to speak.

The Good News:

The new ANSI national standard was put together by many of the top names in the business and does a solid job outlining a corporate response to threats and violence by coworkers and former coworkers (Type III), and family members, friends, and associates (Type IV). It emphasizes the value of a cross-disciplinary team and a broad-spectrum response when assessing and responding to threats within the business.  To the degree that this sort of violence is what most people, employers, and the news media think of when they hear the term "workplace violence" the standard is a move in the right direction.

The Bad News:

Unfortunately, the new ANSI national standard pays but the briefest of lip service to violence perpetrated by criminals – especially during robberies (Type I) or clients, customers, and patients (Type II). Violence by criminals accounts for 75% of all homicides at work. Violence by patients in health care and social services, especially in mental health setting, accounts for the bulk of injuries to employees (and until recently has long been the only category of workplace violence subject to specific OSHA regulation). By not addressing the prevention of or response to these issues in any way the new standard ignores the majority of the problem of workplace violence.

No mention of suicide:

The standard does not even mention the word, let alone examine the idea that some troubled employees end their lives at work.  The 263 suicides in 2009 represent roughly a third of all workplace deaths due to "assault and violent acts."  There are twice as many suicides at work as there are Type II, III, and IV deaths combined.  Why the silence?

I look forward to learning more about why it played out this way and if there is any hope the standard will be broadened to address all aspects of workplace violence.

UPDATE: I corresponded with a friend and peer who served on one of the standard's development committees.  He agreed Type I was left hanging, but makes a good case that Type II offenders can be addressed using this model.  When I think on it further the behaviors exhibited by many clients and customers can be a lot like Type III violence.  Still, attacks and injuries in the health care setting - especially in custodial units - remains more like Type I violence.  My friend was pleased the standard turned out as well as it did on the first pass given the size and scope of the project, three associations in the mix, strict standards criteria, hundreds of participants, and four years of development.  Fair enough.

Radical Red Potato Salad

A good friend of ours brought a delightful potato salad to Labor Day dinner...

As you might guess he's been busy at the Occupy event here in the Twin Cities, but I finally got him to toe the line, return to his desk, put his nose to the grindstone, and submit to my recipe request.  So, without further delay, here is the Eclectic Breakfast's first recipe post:

Below is the very confidential potato salad recipe. Keep it secret. Keep it safe.

RENEGADE POTATO SALAD

Resources:

- 6 medium red potatoes (better red than dead)

- 1/3 cup olive oil (liberated)

- 1 cup feta cheese (crumbled, as in "the vestiges of capitalism crumble into ruin")

- 2 tablespoons garlic powder (unless you're inviting the bourgeoisie parasite to dinner)

- 3 tablespoons red wine vinegar (or just soured red wine, if you're a peasant)

- 2 tablespoons dill (generously)

- 1/2 cup scallion (optional, I didn't have any at the time)

- 6 diced black olives or 6 slices roasted red bellpepper (also optional, did not have any at the time, what with the war on and all)

- salt and pepper (freshly ground under a jackboot)

Tactics:

1. Put the potatoes in hot water and let them sweat. 18-20 minutes ought to suffice before they give in.

2. Chop, press, crumble, and otherwise "re-educate" whatever other ingredients are at hand.

3. Let the potatoes cool again. Once all that agitation is out of their systems, dice them into 3/4-inch cubes. You will find their resistance has lessened.

4. Toss the potatoes with the olive oil and add the garlic salt. Allow them to return to "room temperature," as capitalist commentators call it; we prefer to call this process "mingling with the objective conditions."

5. Add feta and the optional scallions. Drizzle with vinegar. Add dill, salt, and pepper, and toss gently, just to show it who's boss.

6. Allow to rest for at least an hour. This way, the flavors mingle and can appreciate the full extent of your mercy.

7. Add an optional garnish (yuppie poseurs only).
Strategy:

Enjoy - but not too much, or else we'll accuse you of not sacrificing enough to the Party. And for Engel's sake, scrape your plate, there are starving marginalized children in Africa! ... and Asia ... and Europe ... and the Americas.

Photo credit Photos8

May You Live In Interesting Times

Where do the Occupiers of Wall Street and the Tea Party hope to go?

Mark Chubb's post Economic Terrorism at Homeland Security Watch is worth a read.  The article discusses his efforts to contextualize the Occupy Wall Street movement.  In doing so Chubb expresses concern that the Geneva Center for Security Policy has a rather inclusive description of "economic terrorism."

"Contrary to 'economic warfare' which is undertaken by states against other states, 'economic terrorism' would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives. These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences."

While the GCSP is "not the boss of us," to my ears this self-serving definition sounds much more like the actions of firms on Wall Street than it does its peaceably assembled occupiers.  By the way, at first I didn't know if the GCSP had disavowed this view or merely deleted its source document from their website.  A careful reading of the 2005 original suggests they meant primarily to discuss the ability of "real" transnational terror actors to cause economic disruption, but we must be careful not to grant those in power the ability to summarily protect themselves and their cronies from we citizens.  Thank you Internet Wayback Machine.

If ever peaceful assembly, petitioning for redress of grievances, and even civil disobedience or nonviolent resistance meet the criteria of terrorism we need to take a long hard look at who is writing the definition.  As we are reminded in Dr. King's Letter From Birmingham Jail "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"  [Godwin's Law: Score!]

Is insurrection the solution the Wall Street Occupation or the Tea Party have in mind? I don't think so, but the Guy Fawkes masks and "blood of tyrants and patriots" t-shirts worn by some teabaggers give one pause. And who precisely are graduates of the Appleseed project planning to fight?  There is always the risk that the steady drum beat of divisive and violent rhetoric will eventually entice some other Timothy McVeigh to impose his vision of action on the debate. It would certainly be nice to find a way to turn down the heat while continuing a fruitful dialogue. In the mean time Congress and Wall Street seem to be conducting business as usual.

No Cage Match for Craig and Dawkins

Sometimes the courage of one's convictions is not enough...

Premier Christian Radio is sponsoring The Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig.  Craig will speaking and debating at seven venues in the UK this month, the 17th through the 26th of October, 2011.  The organizers made much of inviting Richard Dawkins to debate their man.  Dawkins declined for several reasons, some of them stated, others which may be inferred.  Premier has made much of Dawkins refusal to defend his version of the atheist view, even purchasing some tongue in cheek bus adverts, which will recall some atheist bus ads of years past.

Dawkins supporters have rallied round their idol in support of his nominally principled stand.

Fans of William Lane Craig (WLC) are happy to believe that Dawkin's refusal to debate their idol speaks to the weakness of the atheist position.

Truth be told, it's probably best for Dawkins that they did not meet in rhetorical combat.  Face to face, in a structured debate, locked in to a narrowly defined topic, WLC would mop the floor with Dawkins. Dawkins ought to be brave enough to admit he’s refused to meet WLC in the arena for fear of being beaten on style.  Dawkin’s might have reminded his base that he’s a scientist, not a performer.  Better to admit that WLC is a skilled debater and that the format of the debate would not allow Dawkins to attack WLC’s nasty views on genocide, misogyny, and divine command theory.

All that said, a written debate between these two figureheads, refereed by strict editors, and delivered in book format, would sell like hotcakes to both camps.