Shavonna Williams

11/17/2014 When Will Workplace Violence End?

Workplace violence is an occupational threat and danger for many employees in today’s society. Every year there are millions of occurrences of workplace violence in America, this issue is being displayed all over. The attention has been centered on a few horrific incidents including that of Matthew Beck an accountant employed with the Connecticut State Lottery who shot and killed four Executive bosses at work one morning. Compared to the overall majority of occurrences this incident only indicates a tiny example of a growing problem. Time and again, workplace violence is viewed as part of the job and rarely, anything is done to abolish it. The key to these troubles are based on addressing the establishment’s structural issues, rather than focusing the blame towards employees for threats and dangers that they rarely are ever responsible for generating.

What could make an employee reach such explosive levels to commit violent acts at a workplace? On March 6, 1998 Matthew Beck walked into his workplace opening fire on his subordinates, but it seemed that prior to this horrific day Matthew lived an all around normal life. For eight years he worked for the Connecticut State Lottery. Employees attested that he was a great co-worker and one of the victims described Beck as a hard-working employee. He got along well with others and was a hard-working employee. According to an article in the New York Times Matthews duties and performance were compromised on July 1996 when he no longer bared the title of an Accountant and had to assume another position as a Computer Software Tester. Matthew’s argument was that he was not properly compensated. He wanted back pay, arguing that he should have been paid more for the computer job than his accountant's salary. In October 1996 Beck suffered from serious depression and took a leave utilizing the Family Medical Leave Act from work which ran through January 21, 1998. He would be paid up to this time utilizing occurred sick pay.

According to Beck’s father in an article of the New York Times titled “Not A Monster” he explained that his son had never had an issue other than his college years with depression until now. Concerned Beck might hurt himself his father suggested he seek help. Beck started seeing a psychiatrist in January 1997 and was put on several different medications. Beck filed a grievance based on his beliefs in August 1997. He believed his son had everything under control. Several co-workers thought differently describing a change of behavior and they thought he might “snap”.

In January 1998 Beck was notified that the State had given him back his job as an accountant and on February 6, 1998 he wrote a letter to the company’s director of human resources, raising the concerns of mistreatment and issues of restricted growth within the company. Beck was told he had to wait for the grievance to be resolved before they addressed the issue. In the letters list of complaints was the fact that Beck had been denied an upgrade that every other accountant had been granted. It also stated the job he was doing before he left on leave that involved computer work was reclassified as a higher level and given to another employee. Beck was cleared by the state officials with doctor’s orders to return to work on February 11. He returned to work on February 25th. On March 6th he left home as usual and went to work killing four people that day.

There are different forms of help with these issues but they specify workplace aggression, some of which access behavior. One approach which was developed by Western Kentucky University describes workplace aggressions in a very powerful way. Workplace violence can be described through the Primal versus Cognitive aggression model. In Beck’s case there are several signs of these aggressions; on the primal side he is agitated and is adrenaline driven. His actions are in the early stages of primal aggression. He is in stage one and stage two of primal aggression. Over time Beck quickly becomes more of a cognitive aggressor, climbing quickly past stages one and two and only seeing things from his point of view, which is usually a sign of attack, and is also called sniper behavior. The Aggression model research that has been explained helps organizations to prevent and become aware of workplace violence, explaining how in order to contain and help the aggressor both types of aggressors must be recognized and managed. Unfortunately, the most used approaches are not always detectable.

The U. S. Office of Personnel Management and the Interagency Working Group on Violence in the Workplace developed another way of asserting aggressive behavior and educates a workplace on how to identify workplace violence issues. This handbook is the result of a cooperative effort of many Federal agencies sharing their expertise in preventing and dealing with workplace violence. It is intended to assist those with a process for increasing an effective workplace violence program. It guides an agency's planning group through the basic steps of developing programs, policies, and prevention strategies. If the employers were well-informing their employees of this information at the Connecticut State Lottery a lot of lives might have been spared that awful day.

In some instances even if an employer is aware of an issue arising with an employee you have to be very careful before you can terminate. In Beck’s case he was protected under the Hippa and ADA law. There was patient confidentiality between him and his doctor that could not be disclosed to his employer or the state, leaving his thoughts, conditions and treatments unknown. Under the ADA, an employer may not act based on generalized fears about the risk of violence by persons with mental disorders (Ann Hubbard ssrrn.com). In an article by the Social Science research network, the ADA's direct threat provision prohibits reliance on such 'common sense' fears, which are often erroneous assessments of risk. Instead, Congress imposed a standard requiring a direct threat determination based on an individualized inquiry into the actual, current risks posed by the individual applicant or employee. Following this assessment, the employer may exclude or restrict the individual only if the risk is 'significant,' rather than remote or speculative. Moreover, if that risk can be sufficiently reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodations, including modifications to workplace practices, then the employer may not exclude the employee. If these laws are violated they could lead to serious lawsuits down the road.

Workplace violence is escalates from one instance or another. The following are some of the reasons why these acts of violence are committed in a workplace: • Understaffed, where workers are required to work alone or with not enough support from co-workers. • Improper Training, training workers to distinguish and neutralize potentially violent situations. • Failing to decide which employees may exhibit dangerous or aggressive behavior. • Failing to emphasize safety measures in the workplace including designing the workplace to reduce potentially aggressive situations. • Failing to produce and endorse emergency measures to address vicious situations. • Failing to draw attention to violent dangers and increase control measures, anti-violence workplace policies, and training programs. • Lack of support from employers. • The most common is the continuation of the approach that violence will never happen in their place of employment.

Beck’s rampage could have been prevented if most of these reasons had been addressed. Most employees find it very difficult to deal with change in a workplace. If organizational structure is lacking at a workplace it can lead to negative behavior. A book written by Robbins and Decenzo informs us, excessive pressures will arise causing a great deal of stress. Stress symptoms can vary from psychological, physical, or behavioral, and in Beck’s situation all of the instances were a contributing factor to his rampage. Workplace stress is very common, and some employers do not take enough time to develop their organizational communication. Employers should keep in mind that communication is the key when dealing with change allowing employees to participate in the change process while adding a great deal of support. If most organizations keep up with the job factors then the “white water rapids” would be less complicated to deal with.

Even though work place violence continues to plague many companies today, there are still many ways to keep violence to a minimum. Employers should start by thinking it can happen to them and their organization. With proper training, organizational structure and overall good business ethics the rising number of threats should decrease over time.

Website- Hubbard, Ann, The ADA, the Workplace, and the Myth of the 'Dangerous Mentally Ill'. University of California, Davis Law Review, Vol. 34, 2001; University of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 06-26. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=940082