|
Testimony of Eugene Rugala, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
Before the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Employer-Employee Relations
September 26, 2002
"Emerging Trends in Employment
and Labor Law"
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor
to testify before you today about the problem of workplace
violence and the scope of the problem in America's workplaces.
Before I speak to the issue
of workplace violence, it may be helpful if I briefly explain
the roles of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG)
and that of the National Center For the Analysis of Violent
Crime (NCAVC). The CIRG is an FBI field entity located at
the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Established in May
of 1994, the CIRG was designed to provide rapid assistance
to incidents of a crisis nature. It furnishes emergency response
to terrorist activities, hostage situations, barricaded subjects,
and other critical incidents.
The CIRG is composed of diverse
units that provide operational support and training and conduct
research in related areas. Expertise is furnished in cases
involving abduction or mysterious disappearance of children;
crime scene analysis; profiling; crisis management; hostage
negotiations; and, special weapons and tactics.
The NCAVC, is comprised of FBI
Special Agents and Professional Support staff who provide
advice and support in the general areas of Crimes Against
Children; Crimes Against Adults; and, Threat Assessment, Corruption,
and Property Crimes. Typical cases received for services include:
child abductions or mysterious disappearance of children;
serial murder; single homicides; serial rapes; threats and
assessment of dangerousness in workplace violence; school
violence; domestic violence; and, stalking. Other matters
that NCAVC personnel respond to include: extortion; kidnaping;
product tampering; arson and bombings; weapons of mass destruction;
public corruption; and, domestic and international terrorism.
Annually, NCAVC personnel respond to over 1500 requests for
assistance from law enforcement all over the world.
The NCAVC reviews crimes from
both a behavioral and investigative perspective. This criminal
investigative analysis process serves as a tool for client
law enforcement agencies by providing them with an analysis
of the crime, as well as, an understanding of criminal motivation
and behavioral descriptions of the likely offender. Also,
the NCAVC conducts research into violent crime from a law
enforcement perspective in an effort to gain insight into
criminal thought processes, motivations, and behavior. Results
of the research are shared with the law enforcement and academic
world through publications, presentations and training, as
well as, through application of knowledge to the investigative
and operational functions of the center.
The NCAVC, specifically gets
involved in matters of workplace violence when contacted by
a law enforcement agency, which, when responding to a request
by an employer about a potentially dangerous employee, contacts
our unit to conduct a threat assessment and render an opinion
as to the potential for dangerousness. Once this assessment
is done, NCAVC members will recommend intervention strategies
to lower the level of threat.
In June of this year, the NCAVC,
held a Violence in the Workplace Symposium in Leesburg, Virginia.
Approximately 150 recognized experts in workplace violence
and violent behavior from law enforcement, private industry,
government, law, labor, professional organizations, victim
services, the military, academia, and mental health looked
at this issue from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Issues
discussed included workplace violence prevention, threat assessment
and management, crisis management, critical incident response,
research, and legislative recommendations. It is through this
symposium and the issues discussed that a written monograph
will be produced detailing findings and recommendations. This
monograph will be available to anyone who has a need, and
will be furnished to this committee for review.
For our purposes today at this
hearing, workplace violence can be defined as any action that
may threaten the safety of an employee, impact the employee's
physical and/or psychological well-being, or cause damage
to company property. Workplace violence is now recognized
as a specific category of violent crime which calls for distinct
and specific responses from employers, law enforcement, and
the community.
However, this recognition is
relatively recent. Before the mid-1980's, the few research
and preventative efforts that existed were focused on particular
issues like patient assaults on healthcare workers, or the
high robbery and murder risks facing certain occupations such
as taxi drivers or late-night convenience store clerks. It
was a number of shootings at U.S. Postal facilities around
the country in the mid 1980's, where employees killed other
employees, that raised public awareness of the kind of incident
that is most commonly associated with the phrase "workplace
violence."
In fact, the phrase "going
postal" has been accepted as part of the public lexicon
for this type of activity. Once workplace killings by unstable
employees came to be seen as a trend, incidents tended to
attract wider news coverage. Thus, the apparent rise in such
cases may have been, in part, an impression created by more
media attention. In subsequent years, other mass workplace
shootings have occurred with the most recent being seven co-workers
slain by a software engineer at the Edgewater Technology company
in Wakefield, Massachusetts in December, 2000. Four workers
were killed at a Navistar plant outside of Chicago in February,
2001. There were multiple shootings that occurred at an aircraft
parts plant in Indiana earlier this year.
However, sensational multiple
homicides represent only a tiny fraction of violent workplace
incidents. The vast majority are lesser cases of assaults,
threats, harassment and physical or emotional abuse that makes
no headlines and, in many cases, are not even reported to
company managers or law enforcement. While data on homicides
and other assaultive behavior may be captured, specific data
as to threats and intimidating behavior are lacking.
In a December, 2001, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey
on Violence in the Workplace from 1993-1999, it was found
that an average of 1.7 million violent victimizations were
committed during that period. The most common being simple
assault. This number does not include an average of 900 homicides
which occurred in the workplace during that period. Also,
this study showed, that along with all violent crime occurring
in the U.S., there was a decrease in workplace violent crime.
Since approximately 1993, workplace homicides have been on
the decline. Dropping from a peak of over a 1000 in the early
1990s to approximately 677 in 2000. It should be noted that
the majority of workplace homicides, about 77%, are the result
of robberies and related crimes. Part of the decline in homicides
may be the result of better security programs implemented
by companies impacted by this type of crime (i.e. better lighting,
bullet proof glass, video cameras, etc.). The remaining homicides
are the result of disgruntled employees, clients and customers,
domestic violence and stalking situations which spillover
in the workplace.
Analysts and other occupational
safety specialists have broadly agreed that responding to
workplace violence requires attention to more than just an
actual physical attack. Direct physical assault is on a spectrum
that also includes threats, harassment, bullying, emotional
abuse, intimidation, and other forms of conduct that create
hurt and fear. All are part of the workplace violence problem;
and, workplace violence prevention policies that do not consider
threats and harassment, are unlikely to be effective.
Workplace violence falls into
four broad categories:
- violent acts committed by
criminals who have no connection with the workplace, but
enter to commit robbery or another crime;
- violence directed at employees
by customers, clients, patients, or any others for whom
an organization provides service;
- violence against co-workers,
supervisors or managers by a present or former employee;
and,
- violence committed in the
workplace by someone who doesn't work there, but has a personal
relationship with an employee, an abusive spouse, domestic
partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.
While much has been done by
the retail industry to lower the risk of violent crime associated
with category one type crime, additional efforts should be
focused to identify, prevent and/or manage workplace violence
that involve the remaining categories.
The impact of violence in the
workplace from lost work time and wages, reduced productivity,
medical costs, worker compensation payments, legal, and security
expenses, is estimated to be in the many millions of dollars.
However, the impact of this type of crime goes beyond the
workplace. By impacting society as a whole, it damages trust,
harms the community, and threatens the sense of security every
worker has a right to feel while on the job. In that sense,
everyone loses when a violent act takes place within the work
environment. Everyone has a stake in efforts to stop violence
from happening where they work.
There is no one size fits all
strategy. Discussions with the multi-disciplinary group of
experts in workplace violence and violent behavior, who attended
the NCVACs violence in the workplace symposium in June, 2002,
suggest that success will depend on several factors. First,
employers have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a
safe environment for workers; and, as a result, can face economic
loss as a result of violence. Second, employees have a right
to expect to work in a safe environment, free from violence,
threats or harassment. However, employees also have a stake
in workplace violence prevention and have to be an integral
partner in any such effort. Third, law enforcement, through
the community-oriented policing concept, have placed greater
emphasis on prevention and responding to threats and violent
incidents, rather than the traditional view that law enforcement
should be called as a last resort or to effect an arrest.
Fourth, unions should regard workplace safety from violence
as an employee's right just as worthy of union defense as
wages or any other contractual right. Fifth, occupational,
safety, and criminal justice agencies at the federal and state
level have an important role in developing model policies,
improving record-keeping as to number and type of incidents,
and reaching out to employers. Especially, those in small
companies. Sixth, medical, mental health, and social service
communities have a role in assessment of threats and recommending
intervention strategies and additional research regarding
this issue. Finally, legislators, policymakers and the legal
community can review legal questions that have an impact on
workplace violence and on preventative efforts such as identifying
potentially violent employees.
A multi-disciplinary, broad-based
and proactive approach, at all levels, is what is needed to
quantify, understand, and prevent and/or manage the potential
for violence in the workplace.
I am grateful for the for the
opportunity to contribute to this hearing, and hope that what
we do here today helps in dealing with an issue that potentially
impacts us all. I am willing to answer any questions that
you may have at this time.
|
|
