Published in THE JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, VOLUME 21(6) DECEMBER 2006
Special Issue: Workplace Violence and Bullying in Australian Workplaces
EDITORIAL
This special issue of the journal is focused on occupational violence: a hazard to which workers appear to be increasingly exposed. Forms of occupational violence that have previously been identified in Australian workplaces include homicide, assaults, threats, verbal abuse, sexual harassment and bullying — and, more recently, the possible threat of terrorist attack on workplaces has been acknowledged.
For those who work in the retail and health care industries, exposure to occupational violence is a reality. For those who don’t, violence is often perceived to be a societal or community risk rather than occupational. Where the hazard of occupational risk is recognised, the perception of risk often focuses on external violent threats (particularly terrorism or “hold-ups” for cash or valuables), either against fixed workplaces or against workers employed in public transport or the taxi industry where money is carried.
The genesis for this editorial came about as a result of a seminar that I organised earlier this year for the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) on violence, fatigue and terrorist attacks. The audience was predominantly health care workers, and the guest speakers included Ross Campbell and Adam Lawrence who spoke about “preparing for terrorist attacks”, and Claire Mayhew who spoke about occupational violence prevention. It was with the rising risk of occupational violence in mind that I invited Ross Campbell and Adam Lawrence to open the seminar. Ross is a consultant and author on how to manage corporate crises. His colleague, Adam Lawrence, is an ex-SAS officer who advises on the same area but focuses on the terrorist causes of crises. I wasn’t aware of how topical Adam’s presentation was going to be until I saw an ABC Lateline report on his concerns over a possible terrorist attack on Melbourne’s public transport system. Thankfully, up to this point in time, no attack has eventuated. Nevertheless, a Singaporebased terrorism expert, Dr Rohan Gunaratna, recently stated: “I will say you will suffer from a terrorist attack in the coming years.” This risk evaluation confirms Adam’s and Ross’s concerns and the concerns of many other Australians.
The perceived inevitability of a terrorist attack on Australian soil adds urgency to the need to manage occupational violence risks in all large workplaces, including the health care industry. Hospitals are not only at risk of an attack on their premises but the workforce may also be secondary victims in that those injured in a terrorist attack are likely to be treated by health care workers. Thus, health care workers not only need to manage OHS risks for the usual throughput of patients — they also need to be able to manage injured/ill patients in mass casualty situations, in a time-urgent environment, and at a time when large “ordinary” wards/sections of hospitals need to be upgraded to emergency and intensive care units. Such scenarios have been unknown to local health care workers, apart from occasional disasters (for example, the Granville train crash) or war-time emergency medical treatment situations — all of which often result in profound and long-term negative impacts on the health care workers involved.
However, the available evidence indicates that health care workers already experience disproportionately high levels of workplace stress. According to Chris Peterson:
“...health care work is different in many respects to most other occupations in that death and serious injury characterise some of the work that many health professionals face on a regular or daily basis. For example, studies have reported that medical practitioners find dealing with death and informing others of death or serious disablement very stressful.”1
How much more stressful will the work of these health professionals be when they are involved with mass casualties for extended periods of time? How can we look after the mental and physical health of core emergency workers in mass casualty situations when OHS is not given the prominence it needs in the health care industry? Claire Mayhew was focusing on the risk of occupational violence in health care when she stated at the SIA seminar: “... people within the health industry sector are not reading the OHS literature quite as widely or perhaps not reading the criminology literature and there is a whole raft of prevention strategies out there that just don’t seem to be getting spread across different disciplinary backgrounds.”2
The same lack of attention to OHS risk exposures is likely to be true of many other emergency workers. I would say that much of the research and reports on the psychosocial hazards of emergency workers and other frontline human resources — from the Asian tsunami, the recent hurricanes in the United States, and the aftermath of the London bombings in July 2005 — should be obligatory reading for Australian health professionals.
Focus of this special issue
Two lengthy articles are included in this special issue of the journal. The first of these is written by Claire Mayhew and Paul McCarthy; they report on the findings from a major study which was conducted in a (nameless) Australian public sector agency where the workforce was subjected to extensive verbal abuse and threats from the clients of the organisation. Claire and Paul argue for the need to look outside our comfort zones for solutions. To some extent, Claire’s promotion of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) indicates that these workplace solutions have existed for some time in banks and retail outlets but we don’t see widespread application of these risk management controls in the service sector industry. The other advantage of widespread adoption of CPTED is that “safe design” is not a new or radical preventive strategy concept, but one which has been extensively used across many industry sectors for decades and has been well tried and evaluated. Hence, the concept of eliminating risk at the design stage should have been self-evident to many architects and product designers in the health care and other industry sectors for decades. It is reasonable for Claire and Paul to advocate that: “… all purpose-built buildings or leased premises need to be assessed by crime prevention officers [I would include design OHS specialists] with expertise in CPTED prior to contract completion.”3
In their conclusion, Claire and Paul state that “occupational violence is an emerging hazard across public sector agencies”. I would take a broader approach and say that societal violence has been a well-known hazard in some of our communities for a long time, to the extent that it has gradually become part of our culture. In our reassessment of what is meant by a “safe working environment”, occupational violence is becoming acknowledged as a legitimate OHS threat that is no longer acceptable or tolerable.
The second article in this special issue is by Diana Kelly and is a review of recent research literature on workplace bullying. Workplace bullying has become a bête noire for OHS professionals in government departments and some other organisations (including the military), and Diana’s article is an excellent addition to the growing literature on the hazard. She argues that it is more difficult to measure the costs to individuals of bullying at work than it is to estimate the costs to an organisation. I agree, but there is some useful Australian research on the link between workplace stressors and suicides. A publication from a couple of years ago by Bottomley showed that almost 11% of suicides in Victoria had some relationship to workplace stress (of which bullying was one identified causative element).4 Suicide is an extreme outcome measure of workplace stress, and one that is perhaps easier to identify than those stressors that cause non-fatal but debilitating results. However, if workplace-related suicide is a reality in Australia (not just in Japan), then we have a fixed parameter by which we can measure damage to individuals following excessive workplace stress and bullying.
To counter workplace bullying, we need a supportive workplace and societal framework that acknowledge the contexts from which unacceptable behaviour originates. Over the last few years, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has provided some groundwork for this approach. In its 2003 report, Safety in numbers: pointers for a global safety culture at work, the ILO reported that: “The ILO’s decent work agenda reflects the aspiration of women and men to live and work in dignity. Work is central to people’s lives, to the stability of families and societies. People want work that gives them and their families an acceptable standard of living; work where they have a voice and where their fundamental rights are respected.”5
In 2003, there was much debate in the United Kingdom about a Dignity at Work Bill. This Bill stated that: “… an employer commits a breach of the right to dignity at work of an employee if that employee suffers during his employment with the employer harassment or bullying or any act, omission or conduct which causes him to be alarmed or distressed.”6
In 2004, the UK Government was advised that there may be several business benefits as a result of promoting dignity at work, including:
- improving productivity by reducing the time spent dealing with bullying and/or harassment complaints;
- reducing the administrative costs of processing grievance cases due to the elimination of discrimination; and
- improving productivity and morale by reducing sick leave and absenteeism.
Yet, it is only this year that UK hospitals have begun to formalise their “dignity at work ethos”. The delay does not enhance the reputation of hospitals as caring employers.
Conclusion
An abhorrence of all gross behaviour, such as terrorism, societal violence, occupational violence in its various forms and workplace bullying, has, at its core, shared and common values about respect for human dignity. Arguably, the rise of terrorist threats on workplaces is merely the latest manifestation of the range of forms of occupational violence that have emerged and reached epidemic proportions in some jobs over the past decade.
The OHS legislative obligations on employers and designers to provide both a safe place and a safe process of work are, in reality, only an extension of our individual moral duties to look after and respect each other. We all have legislative obligations, enacted by the various jurisdictional governments, to eliminate exposure to these hazards in our workplaces.
However, we should not ignore a complementary approach where we eliminate such behaviour in our local communities and society at the same time. Our values, our expectations and our behaviour are changing faster than perhaps the legislation reflects. Western cultures sometimes develop an intolerance of others and, perhaps, even a disdain which is manifesting in the way we bully, attack, humiliate and denigrate our colleagues and clients who we perceive as different or inadequate in some way. There is no excuse for inappropriate behaviour that denigrates human dignity. We lived in society before we started employment and we will live in society after our employment ceases. Work takes up a finite section of our life and we need to implement control structures that ensure we are all around for our retirement. Claire and Paul are looking outside the occupational square and finding useful solutions.What other solutions are waiting to be found outside the factory fence that can be applied to protect human life and dignity and promote respect in the workplaces where we go about our daily tasks?
Terrorism on a large public scale or on a personal level (as occupational violence can be) is a symptom of our society and, to some extent, employers can feel embattled by having to deal with non-work issues in their workplaces. It is common for employers to complain that individuals should take greater responsibility for their actions. However, employers are in a wonderful position to affect the behaviour and values of people. Not all employers are role models but there are many “good” employers who are leading by example — the “safety champions”, the corporate social responsibility philanthropists. Conservatives often bemoan the fact that we have few role models and modern society is wayward. The best way to change society is to show the way. Employers are in a position to do this as much as the broader community as a whole.
Workplace safety is still perceived as being reactionary. On the issue of occupational violence and social values, employers, unions and workers have a chance to change this perception. Maybe, just maybe, good examples at work may change some of the damaging activities in our culture.
References
- Mayhew, C and Peterson, C. Guide to managing OHS risks in the health care industry. Sydney: CCH Australia Limited, 2005, p 207.
- Mayhew, C. Occupational violence. Presentation at the Safety Institute of Australia seminar: Violence, Fatigue and Terrorist Attacks, Melbourne, 2005. Safety at Work Bulletin, 26 September 2005, Issue 45, p 10.
- Mayhew, C and McCarthy, P. OHS and public sector workers: the risk of aggression from clients. J Occup Health Safety — Aust NZ 2005, 21(6): 511-550, at p 547.
- Bottomley, J. Work factors in suicide. Melbourne: Urban Ministry Network, 2002.
- International Labour Organization. Safety in numbers: pointers for a global safety culture at work. Geneva: ILO, 2003.
- United Kingdom Government. Dignity at Work Bill. London: UK Government, 2003, section 1(2).
Reproduced with permission © 2005 CCH AUSTRALIA
