Category Archives: Uncategorized

Tracey’s Law: “My Bullying Experience Was Psychological” (Pt 2)

Posted on by
1

“She had her agenda – to get rid of me”

Q: Can you describe what form the bullying took where you worked?

Tracey: My bullying experience was psychological. if you have seen the video, “Tracey’s Law,” you will see that I was an emotional wreck when I finally left my job of nearly 20 years after being bullied for only 6 mnoths. I was a high-level employee, an office manager, and my bully was new to the institution. She had her agenda – to get rid of me but to have me quit instead of firing me (even though I was employed at will). She isolated me from co-workers by putting space between us and telling me I was not allowed to talk to any of them. She gave me time-relevant assignments to do without the necessary resources to complete the task efficiently. She lied about me, talked about my performance (or lack thereof) behind my back, and alienated me from coworkers I had been with for nearly 20 years. My bullying was thoroughly and successfully psychological.

Q: What steps did you take to try to stop it?

Tracey: Since my bully was a new hire, and my supervisor, I sought out different ways of working with her that I thought may be more successful and, in turn, she would see me as somebody who could really help her in her new role as Chair of a large department. Having been there for so long, I knew everybody and what their roles were, how they worked, etc. I went to some employee development, had one-on-one consultations with the university employee development department, and finally spoke with Human Resources – my biggest mistake. They would not listen to me and continued saying that I was having troubles simply because I was not used to her style of management. However, I had three supervisors before her who had different management styles and I adapted well to each of them. When I was confident they were not going to help me in any way, I had to use my last resort and reported that my bully was falsifying her timesheets. So much for the whistleblower law! After that, it was clear she had been spoken to about that because the harrasment got worse and worse. I was becoming more and more distressed and depressed.

Q: How did you cope during that time? Where did you draw your support from?

Tracey: I didn’t cope very well during that time. I had nobody to talk to in the department since they were all told not to talk to me. I drew my support from my family and from searching the internet for “workplace bullying” and found some resources there. Much of the information and steps the Institute for Workplace Bullying had laid out did not or would not help me. I had already tried what I could try and I was documenting information about my bullying experiences, but Human Resources was not going to be of any help to me at all. I met with my family practitioner and she suggested I take some time off to get myself together (I was an emotional wreck at that point and very depressed). I finally agreed and ended up taking a leave of absence that lasted 6 mos. When my six months had expired, I was told I needed to return to my job or resign. I was still traumatized and did not believe that anything would change upon my return, so I resigned.

Tracey’s Law is featured on our “Virtual Town Hall” page or can be accessed for free on both YOUTUBE &Vimeo.

WORKPLACE BULLYING: Would A Law Protect Me?

Posted on by
3

When Is a Law Too Business Friendly?

Many of the victims of workplace bullying that I come in contact with are devastated by the struggle to overcome anger and feelings of powerlessness.   They want to take action.  They want to protect others.  They want a law!

Proposed legislation like the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) seems made to order.  But, Patricia G. Barnes argues that the bill is “unnecessarily restrictive” and “would require American workers who are targets of workplace bullying to jump high hurdles that do not exist for workers in other countries.  There is no valid reason to set the bar lower for American workers.”

Barnes’ bio is impressive and lists her as an appellate judge, a licensed attorney (admitted in PA only), a Westlaw Round Table Group “Employee Relations” expert witness, and a legal author with experience in both domestic violence and employment law.  She understands workplace bullying and she understands law.

“One idea might be federal legislation to amend Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to permit any worker to sue if subjected to a hostile workplace environment,” she writes.  “Another idea is to approach the problem as an important public health issue – which it is – and adopt health and safety regulations to protect employees on that basis. Finally, one might think local – push cities and towns to adopt legislation to protect employees from workplace abuse.”

Or, the Healthy Workplace Bill could be amended into something stronger.  The passionate volunteers fighting for the HWB can add (or delete) language in the bill that places limitations on abused and bullied workers.  Here is Barnes’ critique of the HWB:

“The Healthy Workplace Bill”

[by Patricia G. Barnes] This proposed bill (see below) was drafted by Professor David C. Yamada of  Suffolk University Law School in Boston, MA, and is supported by the Workplace Bullying Institute at a web site called, The Healthy Workplace Bill.

Without detracting from the fine work of Prof. Yamada and the WBI, it is unfortunate that the Healthy Workplace Bill is somewhat anemic compared to legislation  adopted elsewhere on workplace bullying.

For one thing, the proposed Healthy Workplace Bill  would require a victim to provide evidence of malicious intent to bully.  Malice is defined in the proposed bill as “the desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another.”  Part of the “art” of  workplace bullying is subtlety. The target may be the victim of a thousand pin pricks that add up to a mortal wound. The bully acts covertly and uses manipulation to debilitate  the target. Bullies are notorious for showing one face to the target and another to his/her supervisor. It would be very difficult to prove malice in these situations and one can only wonder why this is a requirement  in the proposed Healthy Workplace Bill. 

The proposed bill also would require the target to provide proof of tangible  psychological or physical harm to the plaintiff.  This  would pose a burden for targets who don’t have health care coverage or the funds or the cultural disposition to see a therapist. How can they prove tangible psychological harm?  Also, overwhelming research shows that bullying causes  stress that may contribute to physical harm that only becomes apparent many years later – such as heart disease.  This should be taken into account.

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court says a plaintiff in a Title VII civil rights harassment case does not have to prove concrete psychological harm.   “Certainly Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s psychological well-being, but the statute is not limited to such conduct. So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, Meritor, supra, at 67, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.” Harris v. Forklift System,  510 U.S. 17 (1993).

According to Katherine Lippel, an international authority on workplace abuse, laws in other countries do not have the above restrictions, which would make it far more difficult for a plaintiff  to prevail in litigation. Ms. Lippel is the Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Law, University of Ottawa, Canada.  Here’s what Ms. Lippel has to say about The Healthy Workplace Bill:  “It is understandable that the difficult context applicable in the United States with regard to rights of workers may favor a more restrictive legislative approach for purposes of political expediency, yet even some authors from the United States have expressed concern with the restrictive conditions proposed in the Healthy Workplace Bill.”

Furthermore, the wording of Section 7(b) limits  damages for emotional distress to $25,000 (with no punitive damages)  in  cases where an employer is found to be liable but the target does not suffer an adverse employment action such as termination. This  affects targets of bullying who are not demoted or fired. But why?  There is at least one highly publicized case where an alleged target of workplace bullying committed suicide because he thought that he was  going to be demoted or fired.    This cap is so low that it could  fail to adequately compensate a target of severe bullying and would  not serve as a useful deterrent to employers to halt workplace bullying.

Possibly the limiting language of the proposed Healthy Workplace Bill  reflects a concern by its drafters that employers will fight workplace anti-bullying legislation unless it is sufficiently weak. My feeling is that American workers deserve at least the same level of protection as other workers around the world.

[This article excerpt is reprinted with permission from the blog:  When The Abuser Goes To Work: a legal blog on workplace bullying and abuse.]


HR Response to Mental Health in the Workplace

Posted on by
Reply

Suzanne V. Benoit,  LCSW, SPHR often writes about toxic employees and workplace bullying.  She reveals a personal side in her recent post addressing Carol Kilner’s article Responding to Mental Illness in Your Workforce: Leading a Culture Change [PsychCentral].  I tweeted her right away for permission to repost:

HR Response to Mental Health in the Workplace

by Suzanne V. Benoit

A unique perspective

I came to the practice of HR from a business background and then Clinical Social Work. My views on mental illness and HR arise from a very different place than my HR peers mostly because of my exposure to severe and chronic mental illness. The sigma Ms. Kivler discusses is very powerful indeed. Because of my experience, I am not afraid of individuals with mental illness. I know that these are fellow human beings with a variety of personal values and styles. I know that only a very small percentage of people with mental illness are violent. It’s just that when a person with mental illness commits a violent crime, the media, especially fringe media, bombard the general public with disturbing images and sensationalized information. I also know that most mental health issues in the workplace are mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorders which respond well to medical intervention.

Finally, I know that the mentally ill were not all raised in chaotic or abusive homes. I was raised in a lovely family by good parents (not perfect, but good enough) and had a brother who suffered from bipolar mood swings and psychoses from the age of 20 until his death at 48. The voices he heard told him that he, and not others around him, were bad. I know first hand that the essence of who he was as a person, was not the paranoid, odd behavior and religiosity my brother expressed, but it was the sweet, creative and sensitive individual who worked part-time while well on medication. He would never have harmed anyone.

The American workplace is in need of good information like the tips covered in Ms. Kivler’s article, particularly making information on mental health a part of wellness programs. If only employers could take this information and adopt it freely. I think it is possible but HIPAA presents a psychological and legal barrier to some of the actions suggested in the article. The discipline of HR tends to be generally risk averse. It doesnt’ make them mean or uncaring, just cautious. Let me explain this.

HR is naturally cautious

Employers are responsible for removing the appearance or fact of ADA discrimination. In addition, employers are required to protect the privacy of employee personal health information. To do this perfectly, employers would never want to know if someone has a mental illness. Once you know, you are open to accusations of misusing it in order to keep people from promotions or other employment opportunities. For this reason, medical benefits information or other employee-employer correspondence regarding the diagnosis of mental illness are kept in separate “medical files” and not in the personnel file to which supervisor’s have regular access. Employers must also try to prevent this information from being casually released and discussed amongst co-workers. As such, they may ask employees to refrain from discussing their conditions with their peers.

What is the right balance?

I believe that the answer is to emphasize compassion and inclusion a bit and loosen the mentality of “eliminating” risk to more a risk management posture. Ms. Kivler’s article is timely because presenteeism is an emerging HR issue. It’s like absenteeism in that productivity is negatively impacted. However in presenteeism, the employee is at work but distracted by stress and other matters. Mental illness appears to be one of the growing reasons for this distraction. I would conduct training as Ms. Kivler suggests – fold this into the wellness program. I would make sure that the HR department is a safe and informed place for any employee to go if he/she needed support for time off or accessing counseling benefits. This requires that HR staff be held to a high standard of listening, seeing this in the same nonjudmental way that they see say, diabetes, and well versed in the ways in which mental illness can affect employee performance.

I would make sure my performance evaluation system focuses strictly on what and how the employee performs the essential functions of the job and NOT extraneous and irrelevant information like: age, race or disability. I would encourage the company to sensitively approach employees whose performance seems to be impaired by a personal issue in the same way whether it is divorce, an ill relative or their own mental illness. I would ensure that these individuals receive referrals for EAP or mental health counseling. And finally, I would ensure that my HR staff are comfortable responding lawfully and respectfully to requests for accommodations for a bona fide disability whether it represents a physical or mental impairment.

Staff training and stereotypes

Part of the role of sexual harassment statutes is to prevent harassment in the workplace. The practical effect however, is staff training and development. Employers are comfortable conducting training about how employees should behave when they encounter harassment in the workplace. This means no sexual innuendo jokes, slang, etc. Ms. Kivler suggests that use of the word “mental” should be more comfortable (I agree 100%). I would add that we could also support employees to be more sensitive about comments that could be harmful: crazy, loony or even worse “lazy” as applied to those suffering from depression when they can’t get out of bed.

I am grateful to Carol A. Kivler for writing about this topic. It is timely and very important. I also look forward to @psychcentral’s thoughtful tweets each day on topics of individual mental health.

About Suzanne V. Benoit

Suzanne V. Benoit, LCSW, SPHR is a human resource consultant and author providing strategies to improve workplace culture and quality business outcomes. Striving for corporate excellence means a no-compromise posture on workplace abuse and intimidation as well as creating supporting structures that reward candor, respect and accountability. Her book: “Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem, you can too!” provides details about the source, motives and tactics used by toxic employees and is used by managers struggling to shift negative dynamics in the workplace. Suzanne’s workshops on principled approaches to workplace challenges are “both entertaining and valuable” including tools for attendees’ immediate use. To contact Ms. Benoit can be please visit www.benoitconsulting.com.

 

A cautionary tale from Australia regarding workplace bullying…

Posted on by
Reply

Australia is seeing a huge spike in workplace bullying claims but the majority fall short of qualifying.

Ian Forsyth of WorkSafe says this is due to “greater awareness about bullying and, in particular, to the case of 19-year-old waitress Brodie Panlock, who committed suicide in 2006 after being relentlessly bullied by four colleagues at a Hawthorn cafe.” The positive outcome is that legislation was enacted as a result of media pressure.  The downside is that despite all of the news coverage important information about workplace bullying was not absorbed by the public.

”I think what we are seeing is that the term bullying is being used quite loosely in the community now in many instances to describe something that has ‘gone against me’ or ‘that I haven’t liked’ or something that ‘I haven’t wanted to do’,” says Mr Forsyth.

”As a result, we are seeing a mismatch between what is being labelled bullying and what would really constitute bullying under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

”We’re certainly not saying that these people aren’t suffering from some form of ill treatment or some form of injustice or that they’re not genuinely feeling that they’ve been disadvantaged or put under pressure. But in the vast majority of incidents these types of behaviours which they might describe as bullying are not going to meet the criteria for us to investigate or prosecute.” [Sydney Morning Herald read more..]

The article goes on to say that many of the claims already fall under discrimination and other legislation currently in place.  Sadly the high pressure media attention here in the U.S. may create a similar situation.  Countless articles about workplace bullying here in the U.S. all too often relate unscientific survey numbers and tell victims’ horrific stories without the acknowledgment that many can already addressed under discrimination or physical harassment legislation already in place.   Or, that it may be possible to file a lawsuit as an IIED claim.  This is great for lobbyists wishing to pass a bill but questionable when it comes to what is ethically best for everyone who will be impacted.  And, that would all of us, including advocates like myself, who work or own businesses.

It’s time for each of us to speak up and add our own concerns to the dialog. Journalists reporting on pending legislation in the U.S. all too often rely on a single solution with little or no critique.  The problem with that type of approach is that it subverts the democratic process and serves narrowly focused interests as opposed to addressing all of our concerns.  Crafting strong laws is something that legislators are charged to do and remains each of our right as citizens.  Why hand over concessions in the very first draft of a bill?

Personally, I am interested in collaborating with current advocates across America (many of whom I know and have developed relationships with) so as to strengthen pending legislation [see text of sample bill ] not ditch it — since that is the only way I personally feel comfortable supporting it.  Time will tell if that is something they are open to or not but in the meantime please share your thoughts, arguments and ideas here or email them to OurBullyPulpit@gmail.com

Many thanks,

Bev

Using the Internet to Build an Anti-Workplace Bullying Movement

Posted on by
4

Excluded Voices Are Lost Opportunities To Prevent Workplace Bullying

In my last post I raised the argument that, at least in the US, workplace bullying isn’t a silent epidemic anymore and has in fact become a “hot topic.”  That’s something to raise our hopes but it certainly doesn’t mean that toxic work environments are a thing of the past or that the public dialog is particularly deep and representative of the issues we need to tackle.  With growing recognition has come a vital opportunity for all of us to join together and make a difference.   Using simplistic “schema” strategies may sell books and newspapers but it doesn’t help the battle to make significant change that can have a true impact.  One need only look at the public schools here in the US to recognize that bullying laws have been in effect in many schools for years and years but the true impact has yet to be felt.  And, most of those laws are now being re-invented and recreated to meet today’s needs.  A lesson we can take from the school bullying campaign is that it’s not enough to grab headlines.  Today’s successful advocacy campaigns need many, many participants with a wide variety of opinions at the helm  working together with changing and evolving leadership roles that encourage and foster  new ideas and growth.  That means an end to “evil HR,” turf battles, and corporate conspiracy theories  in order to let everyone who is dedicated and committed to changing corporate culture have a seat at the table.   The quote below pretty well outlines where I think we currently are.

“The advent of the Internet and other new technologies raises important questions about their effects on civic discourse.  Will these new technologies improve the quality of discussion by enabling different positions to be heard and opening up political processes to previously excluded voices?  Will characteristics of the Internet such as hypertext, and the difficulty of controlling message flow, democratize discussion?  Or will the ability to locate others of like mind, that enables the Internet and Web, be used to promote narrow interest groups and hate groups, and fragment the public, resulting in a narrowing of viewpoints and less understanding all around?” [Communication: Ubiquitous, Complex, Consequential, Chap 1]

[www.natcom.com “Communication: Ubiquitous, Complex, Consequential is a collaborative publication that summarizes the relevance of communication research to four grand challenges in U.S. society: revitalizing our political system, promoting physical and mental health, fostering emerging global organizations, and understanding basic human relationships. To download a PDF of Communication, click on the download icon. PDF Icon Image ]”

Public Hearing! Speak Out & Act Now To Help Stop Abusive Bosses

Posted on by
1

Connecticut Public Hearing

“Bullying in the workplace makes it miserable for people to go to work.  It causes stress-related physical problems.  It causes emotional distress that could be disastrous.  Bullying is everywhere and we need to stop it.”

– Senator Edith Prague, Co-Chair, Joint Committee on Labor and Public Employees

State Senator Edith Prague has re-introduced legislation  [House Bill 5285] that would require the state to document Workplace Violence & Bullying experienced by public employees.  The Labor and Public Employees Committee will hold a public hearing on this bill on Tuesday, March 2nd at 2PM in Hearing Room 1E of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.  Continue reading →