Fascinating discussion! I
totally agree that when a manager treats an employee with disrespect, or when a manager publically humiliates someone (especially if it is associated with a job loss), it can serve as a trigger for a violent incident.
"Has anyone ever noticed that the main target of the majority of the violence is management?"
Well, no -- since workplace violence is a recognized hazard, the government tracks it closely. In 2006 (the most recent year for which there is data), managers were the victims in only 4.5 percent of the violent incidents that occurred in the workplace, and the perpetrator was an employee or former employee in only 1 out of 3 of those cases (what do you know, customers and competitors go after bosses far more often than employees do!). In fact, of the 90 workplace homicides that occurred in 2006, none of the victims were managers. The issue here is about protecting our employees.
As I said in my initial post, a background investigation may be advisable, or it may not. In the case of the person who went to his girlfriend's former workplace and shot several people, killing one -- a background investigation may have prevented it, or it may not have -- but here's how that question will play out:
First, at least five different agencies will investigate it. Second, the family of the person who was killed, each person who was injured, and any person who was traumatized (or even somewhat upset) by the event will be contacted by attorneys who promise big rewards if they'll sue. Some of them will. (If the incident itself didn't put the place out of business, all the time that employees and managers will spend in interviews and depositions might.)
If the company has general liability insurance, the insurance company will probably try to settle the claims against the firm. But under tort law, the owners and managers can be sued individually, as well. (Many owners have ended up selling their homes and business for pennies on the dollar just to fund a defense.) And then there are the court cases.
"Mr. Owner, were you aware that your former employee had four different live-in relationships with men who had criminal records, including the man who entered your workplace and gunned down your employees?" (This doesn't have to be true for the attorney to ask it, by the way. "No" replies Mr. Owner.)
"Well, Mr. Owner, don't you conduct routine background investigations on your employees? ("No.")
"Are you aware, Mr. Owner, that violent acts are almost never perpetrated ‘out of the blue' -- that there are always warning signs, and that a background investigation is one of the simplest and least expensive tools an employer can use to identify these signs and protect his workers?" (There's no right answer for Mr. Owner here, of course, and 15 years worth of federally funded studies will be entered into evidence to support his point.)
"So, Mr. Owner, I have to ask, with all this overwhelming evidence, why weren't you conducting background investigations -- especially when it could have prevented this tragic incident?" (To which Mr. Owner replies, "I didn't want to check up on people.")
"I'm confused, Mr. Owner. Isn't it true that under federal law, employees have no right to privacy in the workplace, and under federal law, you are required to take every reasonable measure to protect them from a violent incident? Don't you think the employees who were victims
expected you to provide a safe workplace? Don't you think their families
trusted you to obey the law? Mr. Owner, do you think you're above the law, and that you can do whatever you want, even when it costs your employees their lives?" ("No, of course not, I care abou-").
"Oh sure, you care about your employees, Mr. Owner -- just not enough to spend ten measly dollars to protect them from a homicidal maniac!"
By this point, the jury feels sorry for the victims and hates Mr. Owner. On the other hand, if the owner had been routinely conducting background investigations, it would have precluded that whole line of questioning (and it may have precluded a victim's attorney from even taking the case to trial, because the owner would have had evidence that he was taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of his workers -- and again,
that's the point here.) Of course, there are
other ways to do that -- it doesn't
have to be background investigations (but as Sandy's original post indicated, it is worth
considering at least).
All that said, there are about 7.5 million workplaces in the U.S., and "only" about 1.2 million of them had a reportable violent incident last year -- so the odds are pretty good (about 4 in 5) that business owners can keep doing whatever they want and everything will be fine.
I believe this is a valuable discussion topic for anyone who has employees (plus I got a whole program segment out of it), so my respect and thanks to all who are contributing (even if you disagree with me)!
