The Advantage, January 1998

What Organizations and Individuals Have Done to Invite Workplace Violence

By Larry J. Chavez, B.A., M.P.A.
Hostage Negotiator, Sacramento Police Department

The bulk of the literature on workplace violence seems to parallel media coverage on the subject. They both focus on the perpetrator, the socially isolated loner armed with an AK-47. After the crisis, clinical psychologists, human resource professionals and behavioral analysts tend to descend on these incidents like vultures on a kill waving lists of "canned profiles."

In my profession, crisis negotiation, we encounter the killers while they're still fresh and in many ways, we know more about what got them there than those who only rely on those canned profiles. Why? Because we hear it straight from the killer's mouth while the incident is still in progress. This is when the killer still perceives that he has nothing to lose by telling all. Having this insight allows my colleagues and me to chart a course toward the peaceful resolution of the problem. Our success rate is high. However, even our work is accomplished after significant human suffering has occurred.

The fact is that far too many perpetrators have been allowed to come to full blossom right under the nose of their employers. In a 1991 incident, Thomas Paul McIlvane, a postal worker in Royal Oaks Michigan made threats that were heard by co-workers, supervisors and even union officials. The incident received national attention when that same employee re-entered his workplace on November 14th of that year and shot nine employees, killing five.

It is well known that 85% of internal workplace violence had clear warning signs and just as there are warning signs that apply to individuals, there are also warning signs that apply to organizations. It must be acknowledged that the people who run organizations are capable of contributing to the workplace violence problem. Only then can progress be made toward providing a safer working environment.

Real-world horror stories abound because the killer's co-workers as well as his supervisors and managers failed to take action that would have prevented bloodshed. I feel it necessary to include the following:

A nationally-known insurance company with an office in Tampa Bay hired Paul Calden. A simple phone call would have disclosed Calden's previous firing from another equally renowned firm who terminated him for a "stormy work history" wherein a co-worker saw him carrying a gun to work. This would have prevented Calden from shooting three of his fellow employees to death and wounding two others in January of 1993 after a disciplinary action.

Tracy Stevens, an official at a nationally-known bank with an office in Columbus, Ohio did not take seriously that a terminated employee was making threats to her. She turned down her boss's offer to provide private security at her home. That same weekend in November of 1995, the same individual, Jerry Hessler drove to Ms. Steven's home and killed her, as well as her husband and child. Hessler was taken into custody after a rampage that killed more bank employees at their homes over that weekend.

These incidents point out the absolute necessity for people at all levels of an organization to be well-versed in workplace violence awareness and prevention. Where such awareness is evident, an internal "fail-safe" mechanism is established. For example, if the Human Resource section negligently hires a dangerous individual, the problem may be recognized and caught at other levels of the organization ó before it is too late.

This should operate like a double-edged sword. An employee reporting a co-worker for hiding a gun in his locker may be doing much to prevent an impending problem. By the same token, that employee should also feel free to point out an organizational flaw such as having an unresponsive reporting procedure for workplace violence. When the repair is made, the organization is made safer.

Much has been done by executives and managers to address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. In many ways, workplace violence closely parallels sexual harassment as the latest workplace scourge. In fact, the mechanism used to report sexual harassment could be applied to the workplace violence arena. But unlike sexual harassment which can result in people losing their jobs and an organization getting a black eye from lawsuits and bad press, workplace violence can result in people dying and that is precisely what we must prevent.

This can only occur when everyone in the organization is well-versed on issues of workplace violence prevention. To that end, I offer the following:

• Weak or non-existent policy against all forms of workplace violence.
• No clearly defined rules of conduct.
• Lack of workplace violence training in:
• Awareness of workplace violence issues
• Early warning signs (individual and organizational)
• Handling of on-going emergencies
• Prevention of workplace violence
• Negligent Human Resource practices

1. Negligent hiring practices
2. Negligent training
3. Negligence in supervision of employees
4. Negligence in the discipline of employees coupled with a disrespected disciplinary system (failure to be firm, fair, consistent, predictable and timely!)
5. Negligent retention of employees

• No "facility survival" training for employees
• Ineffective or non-existent reporting procedures for workplace violence or threats
• No in-house employee counseling or support systems (Employee assistance, peer support, conflict resolution, etc.)
• Failure to take immediate disciplinary action at the first indication of violence
• Failure to monitor dangerous employees after disciplinary action (even termination)
• Failure to warn employees in the "zone of danger" of impending violence
• No working relationship with local law enforcement for contingency planning
• Failure to employ appropriate legal remedies
• Poor or non-existent media relations
• Inadequate physical security
• An autocratic or abusive management style
• An atmosphere of indignity tolerating bigotry, sexual harassment or general disrespect or intolerance of others
• Serious unresolved workplace issues
• Past workplace violence incident(s)
• Events generating great stress: Poor handling of downsizing or layoffs
• Increased workloads for remaining employees
• Labor-management antagonism

New Liability for California Employers

An earlier case, Bell v. Macy, found that a fetus's case was dependent on an injury to the mother, and therefore the exclusive remedy was worker's compensation.

In the Snyder case, the employer contended that giving a fetus a separate cause of action defeated the purpose of the worker's compensation system. The employer also suggested that federal law prohibits discrimination against women based on potential exposure to dangerous conditions for a fetus.

The California Supreme Court decided that the fetus has a separate cause of action outside the workers' compensation system. It said the fetus of a customer would have a similar cause of action.

Further, the Court said that any conflict with federal law was a policy issue for the legislative branch of government to resolve.

Employers are truly caught between federal and state law at this point. Our recommendation is that you discuss each individual circumstance with your employment attorney as it arises. Beyond that ... good luck.

No More Daily Overtime Pay?

It has been a long battle, in the state legislature, in the courts and in the news media. Politics of the situation have pitted business owners against labor advocates. Now, unless some last minute legal challenge is successful, it appears the wage order changes will become effective as planned.

The five industries involved are:

• Wage Order 1 - Manufacturing
• Wage Order 4 - Professional, Technical, Clerical, Mechanical and Similar Occupations
• Wage Order 5 - Public House Keeping Industry (Hotels, Restaurants and Hospitals)
• Wage Order 7 - Mercantile Industry (Retail, Wholesale and Sales)
• Wage Order 9 - Transportation Industry

If you are a California employer and haven't yet received your copy of the new wage order for your industry, you may obtain one by visiting the office of the California Labor Commissioner nearest you. You will find them listed in the Government Pages of your local telephone directory.

If you decide to modify your overtime policy by eliminating daily overtime payments, please be sure you check to be sure your written policies, including employee handbooks, are properly updated to match your intentions. Not following written policies can bring on other problems.

Sacred Cows?

There are so many fad approaches to employee management these days, it is refreshing to hear about a very simple and practical method of improving company profitability.

Dr. Robert Kriegel and Dr. David Brant authored a book entitled, Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers: Developing Change-Ready People and Organizations. (Warner Books, 1996) They suggest that reengineering, downsizing and other fast-track panaceas prescribed for corporate ills be chucked in favor of identifying your organization's Sacred Cows. Those, they say, are all those hallowed practices, unnecessary rules and outdated policies that don't work anymore.

Hunting Sacred Cows can motivate employees in your organization and help create worthwhile change.

Why initiate changes? Why, indeed. Aren't downsizings and reengineering products of changes initiated by employers? Why then not look elsewhere within the organization to identify ways of improving the way things are done?

Sacred Cows, according to the authors, are yesterday's rules, old policies and procedures and the way things have always been done. Because of all the other changes in market, customer requirements, technology, products and services, the way things were done in the past are not always the best way to do them in the present.

They cite one example of a tire factory which wrapped their tires prior to shipping. The company had initiated a new process that decreased the cost of wrapping their tires. One young worker asked why they wrapped the tires in the first place and the manager told him it was to keep the white walls from getting dirty. Yet, currently, only three to five percent of tires are white walls. The company saved $24 million by eliminating this particular Sacred Cow.

People (read employees) are highly resistant to change in almost any organization. They will verbally agree, nod their heads when asked to do something differently, and then go right back to doing things the way they have always done them.

Motivating folks to make desirable changes is one of today's greatest challenges for managers. The way to meet that challenge is to get everyone involved in the process.

The process of hunting Sacred Cows can be either structured and formal or unstructured and less formal. You can use teams of people and call them Cow Hunters. You could send everyone out on their own search for better ways of doing things. Chances are fairly good that your people already have ideas about how to improve processes which could result in serious financial improvements.

Everyone likes to feel they are part of the group. We are all social animals after all. No one likes to "sit on the bench" watching from the sidelines. Particularly if they know they have contributions to make.

When a Sacred Cow is found, slain and improvements realized, the time is right for recognizing those individuals who captured and eliminated the dread Cow menace. Be sure your people feel they have a stake in the end result by providing rewards for their achievements in the hunt. Your reward program should be tailored to your organization and your people. Offer them what they really want. Why not? After all, they will be helping you get what you really want ... improved processing and better financial results.

Some areas where you might find Sacred Cows lurking in your operations:

• Paper Cows - reports, proposals, printouts which are never used.
• Meeting Cows - unproductive gatherings which generate more meetings.
• Technology Cow - worship of new technology makes people forget what really matters: the end user and the end use.
• No-Mistakes Cow - "no-mistakes" ethic designed to improve work practices, products and services, does more harm than good. It fosters an atmosphere of caution that makes people afraid to take risks or gamble on a brilliant idea.

Overtime Pay for Exempt Workers?

In at least one portion of the country, it is now acceptable to pay an exempt employee for certain "overtime" hours worked without jeopardizing that employee's exempt status. The ruling comes from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in California. (Boykin v. Boeing Co., 1997 U.S. App LEXIS 22277, 9th Cir., Oct 23, 1997)

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) governs who is and who is not exempt from the requirement to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. People who work in non-exempt jobs are entitled to overtime pay once they have worked 40 hours in any one work week. People who work in jobs which are exempt from overtime pay requirements may now receive pay for their overtime without losing their exempt status. Determining which jobs should be exempt from FLSA requirements depends on careful analysis of job content.

In Boykin, some Boeing managers and engineers claimed they were due extra pay at time-and-a-half for all overtime hours they worked. They based their claim on the fact that the company was willing to pay them straight time for some of their overtime hours, even though their jobs had been classified as exempt. The 9th Circuit agreed with the company. The court said it found nothing inconsistent with exempt status if an otherwise salaried employee is paid extra for extra work, so long as the employee's pay is not reduced for hours missed.

U.S. Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Sec 541.118(b)) prohibit reducing a salaried employee's compensation because of work hours missed. The same regulations say that an exempt employee may receive compensation in addition to regular salary.

The current rule for handling exempt employee compensation, then? Don't deduct from salary, but you may pay for overtime hours worked if you wish.

Take Your Ergonomic Break

Before starting work on a keyboard project, do these exercises to help prepare for your task:

Extend your arms straight out in front of your body, palms upward, and hyperextend your wrists, holding for five seconds. Then straighten your wrists and relax your fingers for another five seconds.

Clench your fists for five seconds.

Turn your palms downward, then flex your still-clenched wrists for five seconds. Straighten your wrists and relax your fingers for another five seconds.

Repeat the above steps ten times, then let your arms hang at your side and loosely shake them for a few seconds.

This regimen is recommended, before starting keyboard work and immediately after each break, by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. These exercises will substantially reduce pressure of the median nerve and help prevent carpal tunnel problems.

Spurious Correlations

The analysis of human resources data typically involves the use of computer databases that were constructed to process transactions. Their purpose normally centers on administration and recordkeeping. Thus the variables that are available for analysis are not necessarily the ones that would be chosen as the ideal set in all situations. In many cases critical analysis variables may be missing. This can lead to "spurious correlations," a common and serious interpretation fallacy.

My favorite example is to do the following:

• Get data on all the fires in San Francisco for the last ten years.
• Correlate the number of fire engines at each fire and the damages in dollars at each fire.
• Note the significant relationship between the number of fire engines and the amount of damage.
• Conclude that fire engines cause the damage.

I like this example because the conclusion is so absurd. Anyone will quickly recognize that both variables result from and are correlated with the overall size of the fire. However, many spurious correlations do not seem absurd and some seem compelling.

The spurious-correlation fallacy is not widely recognized by most people. Its occurrence is pervasive, but it is generally unnoticed.

Correlation measures association. But association is not the same as causation. For school children, shoe size is strongly correlated with reading skills. However, learning new words does not make the feet get bigger. Instead, there is a third factor involved ó age. As children get older, they learn to read better and they outgrow their shoes. Age becomes a "confounding factor." In this example, the confounder is easy to spot. Often, this is not so easy. And the arithmetic of the correlation coefficient does not protect you against third factors.

Discrimination charges involving disparate impact involve groups of people. They are proved or denied based on statistics. Many times, the statistics sound good but are based on spurious correlations.

If a company layoff will result in many more people over 40 being involuntarily removed from the payroll than people under 40, HR managers usually rush to analyze that result. If we conclude that we are discriminating against people over 40 without proper analysis, there may be inappropriate corrective action.

Look at the composition of groups by type of work (job title/job skill set/job requirements). If you are dealing with a job title requiring clerical skills, for example, and most of those people are long service folks, it is quite possible that any who came into the group with strong personal skills have already left the group for higher skill positions. What remains is a group of people who have not expanded their skills, yet continue to age as their service increases.

Now, if that group will suffer force reduction because clerical work load is dripping, it is reasonable to assume that a high percentage of those separated during downsizing will be over 40. What caused the high number? Was it discriminatory policy for downsizing selection? Was it concentration of seniors in clerical jobs? Was it "residual" effects of skill sets left unexpanded? There are many variables to consider. It is easy to grab one obvious variable like age and conclude that we are treating older people disparately because they are over 40. In fact, the correlation may well be spurious.

Statistical analysis becomes very important in discrimination law suits where disparate impact is alleged. Yet, many attorneys and many human resource managers are unaware of the statistical analysis measures which are possible and should be undertaken. If you ever find yourself in that situation, give serious consideration to hiring an expert who can convince the government or a jury of your innocence.

New Association Forming

Employee incentive and recognition programs are not easily implemented. Upper and middle management often question whether such programs are worthwhile. They usually want to know about return on investment and need to be convinced that the change and empowerment is a good thing.

Based in Chicago, the new group had its first meeting in November, 1997. So far, company participants include BankBoston, Chevron and Disney. Membership drives are expected to begin in the near future.

The new Association will be highlighted at the March 1998 Recognition Sharing Conference in Lisle, Illinois. The conference, now in its sixth year, will feature topics such as: How to Get Started; Do's and Don'ts; Recognizing People with No-Cost and Low-Cost Strategies; and, Communicating the Message.

If you would like additional information about either the conference or the new Association, please call 1-888-858-0858.

Office Temperature Wars

What Keeps CEOs Awake at Night?

Well, the answer is "Yes." Inc. magazine recently surveyed the heads on its list of 500 fastest growing privately held companies to ask what concerns them most.

The answer may surprise you. It was not concern over lawsuits or government legislation, or even finding enough money for operations.

The greatest concern of CEOs is what the competition is planning to do next. Managing people came in a close second on the list of sleep stealers.

Here are the survey results in summary:

California Ergonomics

New VETS-100 Filing Date and Address

The 1998 reporting deadline for all VETS-100 forms is September 30, 1998. It has been moved from the original due-date of March 31.

All federal contractors and subcontractors with $10,000 or more in annual revenue from federal contracts must complete and file the VETS-100 report. Contractors are responsible for obtaining the proper forms and filing them by the deadline. (41 CFR 61-250)

If you have questions, or are not sure if you are required to file this report, call us so we can help you determine what is appropriate.

Failure to file can place all your federal revenues in jeopardy, something you don't want to have happen.