WORKPLACE MORALE AND VIOLENCE (Part 1)
By: Steven E. Brown, Attorney at Law
Part one – the problem
Tragic shootings in the workplace, such as the 2006 violence at a U. S. Postal facility in Goleta, CA in which eight people died – including the shooter who was a former employee – remind us about the persistent problem of workplace violence. Although by all accounts the Postal Service was in no way at fault for that particular tragedy, legal practitioners such as I, who represent Postal and other federal civilian employees regularly, encounter unwise management practices that adversely affect morale and expose workers to the possibility of violence. The occasional, and catastrophic, shootings at workplaces around the country are just the tip of the iceberg.
Many of these deadly shooting incidents find their origin in the so-called “disgruntled” employee or former employee who somehow gains access to the workplace and opens fire. Do workplaces engender these violent intentions, or do some employees just have serious emotional problems that lead to such actions regardless of their work situations?
As a practical matter , the answer is a little of both. There is an entire area of sociology and criminology dealing with the topic of workplace violence, and this article is not intended to be nor is it a summary or a review of that literature. The purpose of this article is, rather, to share from the perspective of a federal employment lawyer some of the “stressful” work situations that recur in our practice and lead to various legal claims on the part of labor, management, or both.
What kinds of claims? Employees file workers’ compensation stress claims, employment discrimination complaints, and wrongful termination/discipline appeals, and retire early for personal reasons or based on disability. Employers take disciplinary actions, “freeze out” employees by failing to promote them etc., and expend substantial amounts of funds and energy opposing claims filed by employees.
Often the work situation causing problems for labor and/or management can involve several different legal claims, resulting in a complex interaction between the procedures and legal principles involved in the different claims as they go forward.
The way an employer responds to an employee who is injured or disabled can be critical to avoiding results like hurt feelings, litigation, or worse. The following excerpt from the U. S. Department of Army Course in Occupational Medicine, “Workman’s Compensation and Loss Control”, is a good statement of how employers can effectively deal with employees presenting with an illness or injury:
“Health problems frequently present barriers to work, and if the money is somewhat comparable, impaired workers often make trade-offs between working and accepting disability retirement. However, although money is an important motivator, so are feelings of personal satisfaction, success, or recognition, socialization, and power. If internal barriers such as job dissatisfaction, and external barriers such as lifting requirements can be decreased, the employee may be able to become productive in the workforce. Enabling employees to be productive members of the workforce is key to saving money in occupational health.”
The remaining two parts of this article will examine a few typical scenarios and suggest how the problem can be defused before it becomes a legal problem – or even worse poses a potential for workplace violence.
______________
1. The author is an attorney, not a psychiatrist or psychologist, and the opinions expressed herein are not medical opinions.
2. These are just some of the most typical legal claims filed in the federal sector. There are many others, including: [by employees] whistleblower complaints, challenges to performance appraisals or pay scale, union grievances, inspector general complaints; and [by employers] changes of duties or supervision, denials of security clearances, involuntary transfers or denials of transfers, denials of bonuses or awards, etc.