I have been reading some of the literature in the library database on workplace violence and I was amazed at what seems to be an apparent lack of preparedness by companies for what could be a very large problem. As in other areas or risk management, a company must be prepared for the unforseen event, and not just with insurance to lessen damages. The articles I have read so far are all brining up the point that companies must be prepared for the possibility of a violent occurance and take actions now to, if not avoid the episode, to at least lessen it's impact.
Has anyone had the misfortune of either being a victim of workplace violence or of trying to clean up from the aftermath? The most I can remember seeing is in a former company where a co-worker was suspended for a day because he threatened a customer with physical harm. But I am sure that there are others out there who have had much more serious encounters. Thoughts?
Also I found a book from library, which contents various single articals talking about the violence at work. These articals share a similar idea that violence is a result, or output of a 'system'. Because people have inputed some bad behavior, after processed by this 'system', then output the violence. They agree that they can not change, modify or replace the 'system', but they admit that people can try not to make wrong input. The authors set up different type of model to decribe the 'system'. In my opinion， violence at work is not great different from other kinds of violence. It is also a response to others, to the world, to the 'system'. But it happens within a frame of working enviroment, under a few of rules of behavior of daily life. It sometimes may not origin from the working issues, but from colleague behavior which can also be seen as a kind of violence at workplae.
Just finished reading one article, the study in 2005 by the American Society of Safety Engineers said says that just 1% of U.S. employers have a formal antiviolence policy and the other 99% thought that violence is more or less random--that there's no way to predict when a troubled worker will suddenly snap. It’s unbelievable! Companies did not pay attention on employees’ feeling or treated them impolitely through verbal or physical ways, and they even thought the employee’s violent response is random and unpredictable. It’s so sad. In reality, I think most of the violence should be avoided beforehand. In article, author mentioned people commit violence should have some signal, like announce their intentions, intimidation to someone and so on. To be a supervisor, they should be catch these kinds of signal and do some action to release violator’s stress and to stop the trigger.
Last year, Foxconn, the largest company in Taiwan, had 13 employees try to suicide and do suicide. Only two of them, after rescue, they are alive, but others were all dead, because jumping from building. Foxconn is a huge assembling company from motherboard to Apple product. They have more than 700,000 worker in their group and most of them are in mainland China, because low labor fee. As we known, assembling manufacture is a low margin or tiny profit industry, so Foxconn uses low cost advantage strategy in their management and business. Therefore, they do everything to improve their efficiency and to increase their throughput. From large overtime to inhumanly treatment to their employees, one of employee said “it’s normally to have more than 100 hours overtime per month.” Yes, workers can earn more money from overtime. But, does this also mean that workers don’t have enough relax or don’t have time to be their family. Furthermore, during working, workers have to be silence or quiet. No chat is allowed. It’s true that all these treatments are able to increase Foxconn’s performance or competitiveness. But, it’s rough for their employees. So, it was not surprised Foxconn had some many suicide events. It’s shame that the largest company in Taiwan had this kind of inhumanly problem.
As we know,it is very easy for a person to get angry ,which might end up violently.The manner in which employees see themselves being treated (fairly or unfairly) by their companies affects how these employees will behave (emotionally and behaviorally) in the work environment. In the case of the accused professor, being denied tenure might have caused her to feel that she was unfairly treated by the university,The manner in which employees see themselves being treated (fairly or unfairly) by their companies affects how these employees will behave (emotionally and behaviorally) in the work environment.According to Cohen charash ,job performance and counterproductive work behaviors were mainly related to procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the process or procedure by which ratings are assigned or rewards are distributed) and that perceived injustice causes negative emotional reactions in the forms of mood and anger.Finally, we can say that ,it takes an individual’s personality, a threatened ego, and a view of injustice to contribute to workplace aggression.
The violence at my work place is somewhat different than most others. I am a college baseball coach and there is a very blurry line between violence towards your players or motivation/coaching your players. I am the pitching coach and during our practices I try to duplicate the pressure they will experience during a game. During bullpens (pitching practice), I have yelled at each player, I purposely called a pitch a ball instead of a strike, I have forced each pitcher to throw their toughest pitch during the toughest time, I throw anything I can think of at them to put pressure on them and each day we do this….. our pitching staff gets stronger. But as an outsider, you do not see the improvement; all you would see is the “violence” in the work place. Take Bobby Knight for example. He went way passed the blurry line of violence and put his hands on his players in rage. However, if you go back and ask his players if they thought he only wanted the best for each player….. they all would say yes. In a workplace where certain types of violence can be used as motivation, it is hard to determine just what is over the line and what is not. I feel that anytime violence is used in response to anger as a coach….. then that should be determined violence in the coaching workplace.
As the years have exposed us to increasing inappropriate worker treatment, which in some extreme instances leads to uncontrollable violence, we have become more and more aware of the seriousness of the problem. Violence in the workplace seems to be more prevalent in our society than even before. Media outlets contribute to this heightened sense of attention –rightly so- but my opinion leads me to believe that this sort of behavior has been plaguing the work place for centuries. Researching this subject for my semester project, I was amazed to see some of the statistics that surround this phenomenon. According the CFOI, 521 homicides were perpetrated in 2009 directly related to workplace violence. A senseless number and a disregard toward humanity. Fortunately, I have never had to confront something of this nature directly or for that matter have known anyone remotely close to me that has had this type of experience, but I can only image the psychological damage done to the victims and their families. Due to the randomness of these actions, ultimately putting an end to them will never come fruition, but constant awareness and vigilance by concerned citizens, politicians and decent people has made a tremendous impact on trying to implement safely precautions at the workplace to mitigate these occurrence through continual training and caution. There is a tremendous effort ahead, but having the opportunity to work on this topic is going to be a great learning experience for me….especially when something is a concern to me.
As Logan mentioned, athletic coaches do walk that fine line between violent, and trying to get a players attention or compliance. This violence can also be masked by the term "lighting a fire under you." As Logan mentioned high school baseball, my high school had a fantastic program. We had several player get major league (via the minor league system) contracts straight out of high school. He coached the winning US team in the teenage World Series. It was considered an honor by most to play for this man. However, it was also known that he could get "physical" with his players. If you messed up, you could expect a backhand slap to the face. If you really messed up, he'd use the hand with championship ring. Everyone knew, but he got away with because he was a winner. I wanted to go in a different direction here. Most of these posts have been about physical violence in the workplace. Yes, this is something experience, and sometimes it is extreme. Sometimes, someone does come in, guns blazing. I work in a bank, and have known people whose branches were robbed at gun point, I even know someone who's finger was shot off by a robber just firing randomly as he entered the branch. But this type of violence is rather rare, and is difficult to really plan for. Also, I don't think (outside of sports) I've ever know someone who worked at a company where physical violence was an issue. The topic I wanted to bring up was verbal violence. Have you ever worked in a verbally violent environment? I have, and it is not a productive place to work. Imagine going to work every day, wondering if you were going to end up in a screaming match with your coworker or superior. I understand that from time to time, voices will get raised over the occasional disagreeance, but it becomes an issue when this becomes a regular occurrence. In addition to one of my ex-bosses being a poor communicator, he also hated to be wrong. He could be set off by the smallest of things including if he was wrong, forgot to do something he said he would, or gave vague instructions causing you to misinterpret what you thought you were supposed to do. His response wasn't just to yell about what went wrong, he would yell about all of you "short-comings" as an employee. He would bring up every time you were wrong or screwed up, as though that made his mistake somehow better. I feel this is a much more serious type of workplace violence because it doesn't make the news, but it hurts the company just as bad. Office moral deteriorates quickly when everyone's past mistakes are continuously thrown back at you at 100 miles an hour and at 120 decibels. Productivity is also destroyed as no one wants to do anything unless they are absolutely certain it is what is supposed to be done, and they will complete it without error. The other thing that can make this violence worse is sometimes the person perpetrating it is at the top of the food chain, making it difficult to stop, as there's no one above them to talk to. Physical violence is bad, but it can be dealt with quickly, and may not leave much of a lasting impact. Verbal violence can be difficult to contain, has the tendency to have lasting effects on people confidence, and has a tendency to spill over in the private lives of those affected by it.
I am reading an article which talks about violence at work. But it is not about tradition or physical violence, it is about cold violence. It says cold violence was noticed in marriage and family, but this concept has spread to workplace, known as “workplace cold violence.” Workplace clod violence could be sorted into three main kinds of behaviors: isolation, suppression, and disregard.
Isolation is a typical behavior how people act towards a new person. The most harm is they feel helpless. Unless they can get themselves fit into the group, the only way is leaving. Suppression happens when your seniors or superiors think you are dangerous because of your talent. Try to adjust your attitude may be able to get over it. I think disregard is the most violent behavior. It takes all your work away to give someone else in your team, only because that guy knows how to make superior happy. That would damage morale in workplace so badly.
Unless we are all our own bosses, we need to learn how to deal with workplace cold violence and to build good relationship with colleagues.
I think it is a common misconception that violence in the workplace is increasing every year and is much worse than "the good old days". Actually workplace violence has steadily declined over the last two decades and its rate of incident are 1/3 of what they were 20 years ago. In reality violence in the workplace is a diminishing threat.
I also do not think people should be so quick to declare companies negligent or somehow clueless because they do not have active anti-violence activities or measures in place. Statistics actually back up what a lot of companies say which is that workplace violence can be so random that it is almost impossible to know when and where it will strike. Now, obviously companies need to have systems in place to refer employees to get help or to be disciplined if they start to show signs of instability but who hasn't heard this line from the neighbor of guy who just shot up his workplace, "I would have never seen it coming. He just isn't that kind of person.". Managers play a big role in paying attention to and monitoring troubled employees but if they overreacted to every troubled employee as if he/she was about to turn into a mass murderer in the workplace they would be wrong most of the time and would get sued a lot. Workplace violence is very random and unpredictable which is why trying to prevent it is such a daunting task.
OPSEC stands for Operational Security. It is a term used in the military and the federal government. OPSEC has guidelines that are to be followed to prevent attacks, disruptions or violence in or of the operations of a particular agency. One interesting part of OPSEC is the lesson that a risk that has been identified must be weighed against the possibility that the risk will be exploited, how much damage could be done if that risk is exploited and the cost of trying to prevent the risk from being exploited. If the cost to prevent the risk from being exploited is greater than the risk or it being exploited and the damage that would occur from it being exploited then it is an acceptable risk. With violent workplace incidents being on the decline, so random, unpredictable and so rare, the costs to try to completely prepare your entire company to prevent it would far outweigh the benefit. Basically workplace violence can be prevented in many ways before it happens, and a company should take all steps to try to prevent it within reason, but for most companies workplace violence is going to end up being labeled as an acceptable risk because the massive amounts of time and money it would take to try to make sure something tragic does not happen would easily dwarf the benefit that would be gained.
I was reading some articles on workplace violence and found that there are different types of workplace violence. First we have the criminal type in which there is person inflicting the violence has no relation to the workplace or the employee. An example of this type of violence is a burglary or robbery. Most workplace deaths are caused by this type of workplace violence. The second type of workplace violence is the customer client violence. in this type the person inflicting the violence receives something from the employer and is not satisfied with it, causing the violence. The third type of workplace violence is the employee on employee violence. In this type of workplace violence, employees have problems getting along with their coworkers. Less than 10% of the deaths in the workplace were due to coworker violence. Some reasons that employees can have problems with their coworkers are domestic problems, economic problems, or just psychological problems.
Luckily, I have never experienced any form of workplace violence so I cannot relate to it much, but I do understand what it must be like to go through something like employee on employee violence everyday, since we work 5 out of 7 days. Seeing that person everyday may cause some deficiencies in your work and may even cause emotional distress. If anyone faces such violence at work they need to take some action to try and resolve it, such as talking to HR or to your superior. I know that might not be the best way to handle it, but like I said I have never experienced or heard of such incidences before.
According to the article, Workplace Violence, 1993-2009, approximately 572,000 violent crimes occurred against persons age sixteen or older while they were at work or on duty, during 2009. The rate of violent crime against employed persons has declined since 1993. In 2009, an estimated 4 violent crimes per 1,000 employed persons age 16 or older were committed while the victims were at work or on duty, compared to 6 violent crimes per 1,000 employed persons age 16 or older in 2002. In 1993, the rate of nonfatal violence was 16 violent crimes per 1,000 employed persons while at work, a rate seventy-five percent higher than 2009
violence in the work place is a traumatic experience for employees and has cost businesses over $4 billion annually.The reason for work place violence arises out of economic, social, and organizational issues. Management is responsible for this violence because they usually create a toxic work environment that is unbearable for employees. Also,termination should be well planned out and done with sensitivity because failure to do this will escalate undesired outcome.
I have been reading some of the literature in the library database on workplace violence and I was amazed at what seems to be an apparent lack of preparedness by companies for what could be a very large problem. As in other areas or risk management, a company must be prepared for the unforseen event, and not just with insurance to lessen damages. The articles I have read so far are all brining up the point that companies must be prepared for the possibility of a violent occurance and take actions now to, if not avoid the episode, to at least lessen it's impact.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone had the misfortune of either being a victim of workplace violence or of trying to clean up from the aftermath? The most I can remember seeing is in a former company where a co-worker was suspended for a day because he threatened a customer with physical harm. But I am sure that there are others out there who have had much more serious encounters. Thoughts?
Also I found a book from library, which contents various single articals talking about the violence at work. These articals share a similar idea that violence is a result, or output of a 'system'. Because people have inputed some bad behavior, after processed by this 'system', then output the violence. They agree that they can not change, modify or replace the 'system', but they admit that people can try not to make wrong input.
ReplyDeleteThe authors set up different type of model to decribe the 'system'.
In my opinion， violence at work is not great different from other kinds of violence. It is also a response to others, to the world, to the 'system'. But it happens within a frame of working enviroment, under a few of rules of behavior of daily life. It sometimes may not origin from the working issues, but from colleague behavior which can also be seen as a kind of violence at workplae.
Just finished reading one article, the study in 2005 by the American Society of Safety Engineers said says that just 1% of U.S. employers have a formal antiviolence policy and the other 99% thought that violence is more or less random--that there's no way to predict when a troubled worker will suddenly snap. It’s unbelievable! Companies did not pay attention on employees’ feeling or treated them impolitely through verbal or physical ways, and they even thought the employee’s violent response is random and unpredictable. It’s so sad. In reality, I think most of the violence should be avoided beforehand. In article, author mentioned people commit violence should have some signal, like announce their intentions, intimidation to someone and so on. To be a supervisor, they should be catch these kinds of signal and do some action to release violator’s stress and to stop the trigger.
ReplyDeleteLast year, Foxconn, the largest company in Taiwan, had 13 employees try to suicide and do suicide. Only two of them, after rescue, they are alive, but others were all dead, because jumping from building. Foxconn is a huge assembling company from motherboard to Apple product. They have more than 700,000 worker in their group and most of them are in mainland China, because low labor fee. As we known, assembling manufacture is a low margin or tiny profit industry, so Foxconn uses low cost advantage strategy in their management and business. Therefore, they do everything to improve their efficiency and to increase their throughput. From large overtime to inhumanly treatment to their employees, one of employee said “it’s normally to have more than 100 hours overtime per month.” Yes, workers can earn more money from overtime. But, does this also mean that workers don’t have enough relax or don’t have time to be their family. Furthermore, during working, workers have to be silence or quiet. No chat is allowed. It’s true that all these treatments are able to increase Foxconn’s performance or competitiveness. But, it’s rough for their employees. So, it was not surprised Foxconn had some many suicide events. It’s shame that the largest company in Taiwan had this kind of inhumanly problem.
ReplyDeleteAs we know,it is very easy for a person to get angry ,which might end up violently.The manner in which employees see themselves being treated (fairly or unfairly) by their companies affects how these employees will behave (emotionally and behaviorally) in the work environment. In the case of the accused professor, being denied tenure might have caused her to feel that she was unfairly treated by the university,The manner in which employees see themselves being treated (fairly or unfairly) by their companies affects how these employees will behave (emotionally and behaviorally) in the work environment.According to Cohen charash ,job performance and counterproductive work behaviors were mainly related to procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the process or procedure by which ratings are assigned or rewards are distributed) and that perceived injustice causes negative emotional reactions in the forms of mood and anger.Finally, we can say that ,it takes an individual’s personality, a threatened ego, and a view of injustice to contribute to workplace aggression.
ReplyDeleteThe violence at my work place is somewhat different than most others. I am a college baseball coach and there is a very blurry line between violence towards your players or motivation/coaching your players.
ReplyDeleteI am the pitching coach and during our practices I try to duplicate the pressure they will experience during a game. During bullpens (pitching practice), I have yelled at each player, I purposely called a pitch a ball instead of a strike, I have forced each pitcher to throw their toughest pitch during the toughest time, I throw anything I can think of at them to put pressure on them and each day we do this….. our pitching staff gets stronger. But as an outsider, you do not see the improvement; all you would see is the “violence” in the work place.
Take Bobby Knight for example. He went way passed the blurry line of violence and put his hands on his players in rage. However, if you go back and ask his players if they thought he only wanted the best for each player….. they all would say yes.
In a workplace where certain types of violence can be used as motivation, it is hard to determine just what is over the line and what is not. I feel that anytime violence is used in response to anger as a coach….. then that should be determined violence in the coaching workplace.
Workplace Violence-Blog Entry 1- Michael Rubbo
ReplyDeleteAs the years have exposed us to increasing inappropriate worker treatment, which in some extreme instances leads to uncontrollable violence, we have become more and more aware of the seriousness of the problem. Violence in the workplace seems to be more prevalent in our society than even before. Media outlets contribute to this heightened sense of attention –rightly so- but my opinion leads me to believe that this sort of behavior has been plaguing the work place for centuries. Researching this subject for my semester project, I was amazed to see some of the statistics that surround this phenomenon. According the CFOI, 521 homicides were perpetrated in 2009 directly related to workplace violence. A senseless number and a disregard toward humanity. Fortunately, I have never had to confront something of this nature directly or for that matter have known anyone remotely close to me that has had this type of experience, but I can only image the psychological damage done to the victims and their families. Due to the randomness of these actions, ultimately putting an end to them will never come fruition, but constant awareness and vigilance by concerned citizens, politicians and decent people has made a tremendous impact on trying to implement safely precautions at the workplace to mitigate these occurrence through continual training and caution. There is a tremendous effort ahead, but having the opportunity to work on this topic is going to be a great learning experience for me….especially when something is a concern to me.
As Logan mentioned, athletic coaches do walk that fine line between violent, and trying to get a players attention or compliance. This violence can also be masked by the term "lighting a fire under you." As Logan mentioned high school baseball, my high school had a fantastic program. We had several player get major league (via the minor league system) contracts straight out of high school. He coached the winning US team in the teenage World Series. It was considered an honor by most to play for this man. However, it was also known that he could get "physical" with his players. If you messed up, you could expect a backhand slap to the face. If you really messed up, he'd use the hand with championship ring. Everyone knew, but he got away with because he was a winner.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to go in a different direction here. Most of these posts have been about physical violence in the workplace. Yes, this is something experience, and sometimes it is extreme. Sometimes, someone does come in, guns blazing. I work in a bank, and have known people whose branches were robbed at gun point, I even know someone who's finger was shot off by a robber just firing randomly as he entered the branch. But this type of violence is rather rare, and is difficult to really plan for. Also, I don't think (outside of sports) I've ever know someone who worked at a company where physical violence was an issue.
The topic I wanted to bring up was verbal violence. Have you ever worked in a verbally violent environment? I have, and it is not a productive place to work. Imagine going to work every day, wondering if you were going to end up in a screaming match with your coworker or superior. I understand that from time to time, voices will get raised over the occasional disagreeance, but it becomes an issue when this becomes a regular occurrence. In addition to one of my ex-bosses being a poor communicator, he also hated to be wrong. He could be set off by the smallest of things including if he was wrong, forgot to do something he said he would, or gave vague instructions causing you to misinterpret what you thought you were supposed to do. His response wasn't just to yell about what went wrong, he would yell about all of you "short-comings" as an employee. He would bring up every time you were wrong or screwed up, as though that made his mistake somehow better. I feel this is a much more serious type of workplace violence because it doesn't make the news, but it hurts the company just as bad. Office moral deteriorates quickly when everyone's past mistakes are continuously thrown back at you at 100 miles an hour and at 120 decibels. Productivity is also destroyed as no one wants to do anything unless they are absolutely certain it is what is supposed to be done, and they will complete it without error. The other thing that can make this violence worse is sometimes the person perpetrating it is at the top of the food chain, making it difficult to stop, as there's no one above them to talk to. Physical violence is bad, but it can be dealt with quickly, and may not leave much of a lasting impact. Verbal violence can be difficult to contain, has the tendency to have lasting effects on people confidence, and has a tendency to spill over in the private lives of those affected by it.
I am reading an article which talks about violence at work. But it is not about tradition or physical violence, it is about cold violence. It says cold violence was noticed in marriage and family, but this concept has spread to workplace, known as “workplace cold violence.” Workplace clod violence could be sorted into three main kinds of behaviors: isolation, suppression, and disregard.
ReplyDeleteIsolation is a typical behavior how people act towards a new person. The most harm is they feel helpless. Unless they can get themselves fit into the group, the only way is leaving. Suppression happens when your seniors or superiors think you are dangerous because of your talent. Try to adjust your attitude may be able to get over it. I think disregard is the most violent behavior. It takes all your work away to give someone else in your team, only because that guy knows how to make superior happy. That would damage morale in workplace so badly.
Unless we are all our own bosses, we need to learn how to deal with workplace cold violence and to build good relationship with colleagues.
I think it is a common misconception that violence in the workplace is increasing every year and is much worse than "the good old days". Actually workplace violence has steadily declined over the last two decades and its rate of incident are 1/3 of what they were 20 years ago. In reality violence in the workplace is a diminishing threat.
ReplyDeleteI also do not think people should be so quick to declare companies negligent or somehow clueless because they do not have active anti-violence activities or measures in place. Statistics actually back up what a lot of companies say which is that workplace violence can be so random that it is almost impossible to know when and where it will strike. Now, obviously companies need to have systems in place to refer employees to get help or to be disciplined if they start to show signs of instability but who hasn't heard this line from the neighbor of guy who just shot up his workplace, "I would have never seen it coming. He just isn't that kind of person.". Managers play a big role in paying attention to and monitoring troubled employees but if they overreacted to every troubled employee as if he/she was about to turn into a mass murderer in the workplace they would be wrong most of the time and would get sued a lot. Workplace violence is very random and unpredictable which is why trying to prevent it is such a daunting task.
OPSEC stands for Operational Security. It is a term used in the military and the federal government. OPSEC has guidelines that are to be followed to prevent attacks, disruptions or violence in or of the operations of a particular agency. One interesting part of OPSEC is the lesson that a risk that has been identified must be weighed against the possibility that the risk will be exploited, how much damage could be done if that risk is exploited and the cost of trying to prevent the risk from being exploited. If the cost to prevent the risk from being exploited is greater than the risk or it being exploited and the damage that would occur from it being exploited then it is an acceptable risk. With violent workplace incidents being on the decline, so random, unpredictable and so rare, the costs to try to completely prepare your entire company to prevent it would far outweigh the benefit. Basically workplace violence can be prevented in many ways before it happens, and a company should take all steps to try to prevent it within reason, but for most companies workplace violence is going to end up being labeled as an acceptable risk because the massive amounts of time and money it would take to try to make sure something tragic does not happen would easily dwarf the benefit that would be gained.
I was reading some articles on workplace violence and found that there are different types of workplace violence. First we have the criminal type in which there is person inflicting the violence has no relation to the workplace or the employee. An example of this type of violence is a burglary or robbery. Most workplace deaths are caused by this type of workplace violence. The second type of workplace violence is the customer client violence. in this type the person inflicting the violence receives something from the employer and is not satisfied with it, causing the violence. The third type of workplace violence is the employee on employee violence. In this type of workplace violence, employees have problems getting along with their coworkers. Less than 10% of the deaths in the workplace were due to coworker violence. Some reasons that employees can have problems with their coworkers are domestic problems, economic problems, or just psychological problems.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, I have never experienced any form of workplace violence so I cannot relate to it much, but I do understand what it must be like to go through something like employee on employee violence everyday, since we work 5 out of 7 days. Seeing that person everyday may cause some deficiencies in your work and may even cause emotional distress. If anyone faces such violence at work they need to take some action to try and resolve it, such as talking to HR or to your superior. I know that might not be the best way to handle it, but like I said I have never experienced or heard of such incidences before.
According to the article, Workplace Violence, 1993-2009, approximately 572,000 violent crimes occurred against persons age sixteen or older while they were at work or on duty, during 2009. The rate of violent crime against employed persons has declined since 1993. In 2009, an estimated 4 violent crimes per 1,000 employed persons age 16 or older were committed while the victims were at work or on duty, compared to 6 violent crimes per 1,000 employed persons age 16 or older in 2002. In 1993, the rate of nonfatal violence was 16 violent crimes per 1,000 employed persons while at work, a rate seventy-five percent higher than 2009
ReplyDeleteviolence in the work place is a traumatic experience for employees and has cost businesses over $4 billion annually.The reason for work place violence arises out of economic, social, and organizational issues. Management is responsible for this violence because they usually create a toxic work environment that is unbearable for employees. Also,termination should be well planned out and done with sensitivity because failure to do this will escalate undesired outcome.
ReplyDelete