Even worse, did the judicial system show favoritism in the way it handled her previous outbursts and other accusations against her?  If in earlier years the courts had insisted that the young woman get psychological help or receive anger management training, could the violent episode in 2010 have been prevented?

Due diligence by the University should have uncovered at least some of these  incidents, but it did not.  Why? What prevented the would-be employer from uncovering violent behavior that had occurred before and therefore would likely recur in some form? Because charges were never filed.  Why were charges not filed?  In our system where the majority of offenders are male and not highly educated, would the System have acted differently if this offender had not been a well-educated female?

In a case like this where three people were shot dead and others injured, one would have expected to see some warning signs that a violent eruption could be in the works.  If all the previous incidents had occurred at this university or even in the city of Huntsville, we’d like to think that sufficient information would have been uncovered to cast doubt on this woman’s ability to function safely.  Perhaps  she would not have been hired or greater attention would have been paid to her behavior and to feedback from students, faculty, and administrators.

So what went terribly wrong?  Did the legal/judicial system fail us by not thoroughly investigating significant incidents?  Why? Dismissing or hiding incidents to protect offenders can result in the price ultimately being paid by innocent people instead. Failure to investigate violent eruptions and wiping the records clean to protect someone who needs psychological help are expensive and ineffective ways of solving our Workplace Violence and mental health problems.

Both of these recent cases are consistent with our premise that violence does not just happen, but rather anger and violent tendencies build toward an outright explosion like the eruption of a volcano (Van Fleet and Van Fleet, The Violence Volcano).  What makes them different is that, unlike most cases of Workplace Violence, the signs may not have been visible to the ultimate victims. Thus, there did not seem to be the usual opportunity to intervene before the volcano erupted — or in the case of the professor, before the volcano erupted again.

We know now that the Harvard-trained professor had reached the explosive point on previous occasions — e.g., when she shot her brother at home (not an incident of workplace violence) and when she exploded at another mother in a restaurant.  It is important to note that she was not held responsible for her actions in the first case and only received probation in the second, hence leaving no record that would be uncovered during due process by a future employer. Thus, there was little, if any, opportunity for the Alabama faculty to know about the past.  The observations that were made by students and faculty – “weird” and perhaps not a really effective teacher – are not signs of impending explosiveness.

Apparently the unemployed Austin software engineer/musician/pilot had had disagreements with the IRS over the years, but this would not have been known by the IRS personnel working in the glass-front building in Austin.  His wife and daughter are said to have noted a major change recently in his behavior and temperament but would not have had reason to expect that he would attack someone’s workplace (he did not have a workplace). As with the professor, previous signs occurred geographically removed from the current worksites and therefore not visible to the ultimate victims.

From the information we have at this writing, it seems that no one was in a position to see these explosive acts coming.  However, in hindsight, were there signs that were overlooked? It is very important that both the Alabama department  and the IRS as well as the families take off the blinders now and look carefully for signs that were perhaps missed.

Clearly, there are numerous things that can push an employee toward an act of violence. Although individuals cannot be absolved from blame for violence, in some cases it is the organization itself that is “sick” enough to trigger workplace violence. In a “normal environment” individuals may express their stress or vent their negative feelings in a more-or-less acceptable manner.  But in a “sick environment,” especially if the organization does not acknowledge and change its climate, the hostility continues to build. Eventually, the Violence Volcano can be expected to erupt in the form of more extreme violent behavior, such as death or other irreparable damage.

There is a possibility that this is what happened at ABB Inc. Reportedly, Hendron and a few other ABB employees had been dissatisfied with actions regarding the company’s retirement plan. They had filed a lawsuit in 2006 against administrators of the company’s retirement plan. We don’t yet know the feedback, if any, that may have been given to the plaintiffs or the expected outcome of that case. Hendron may have thought, for example, that it was a losing battle and thus decided to take the case into his own hands.

In The Violence Volcano (Van Fleet and Van Fleet, 2010) we discuss the symptoms of a “sick” internal environment and how to minimize the impact of these negative organizational influences and manage their occurrence and consequences.
members.cox.net/badworkplace/1index.html

• CASE: What can you say when a coworker in the office constantly annoys everyone with her religious talks? A get-together at her home turns out to be a recruiting meeting for her church, not an office party. She sends emails and pamphlets and corners workers in the break room and at lunch to push her views. Conversations start as a pretext to something that’s office-related but always end up with her turning the subject to her religion and how we need to experience what she experiences. By the way, her boss goes to the same church.

Someone, preferably HR rather than a coworker, needs to inform her that harassment is not necessarily sexual in nature and that it can be subtle (shunning, annoying, or avoiding an individual) or very overt (propositioning or making explicit requests). Harassment of any kind can affect workers deeply, although some individuals may be able to cope with them so that they are not so disruptive of the work environment.

We personally have dealt successfully with religious harassment by simply telling the other person calmly, eye-to-eye, that we are happy that she has found the religion of her choice and that it brings her much joy – but that we also have made our choices, that we have our own religious views, and are not open to changing. “We respect your choices; please respect ours.”

If that doesn’t work, tell the person that you would appreciate her not discussing personal, non-work matters at work, as religion is a very private matter and that probably no one here is interested in changing his or her choice.

Notice that we do not suggest telling the person whether we attend church or believe in her God. All such personal questions should go unanswered as they are inappropriate for office discussion.

Have you experienced this type of workplace problem?  Let us hear from you.

If you work in the food industry – or if you buy food at someone’s workplace – workplace violence could suddenly and unexpectedly take on a whole new meaning for you.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 76 million food-borne illness cases occur “naturally” or “non-intentionally” in the United States every year.

This amounts to one in four Americans becoming ill after eating foods contaminated with pathogens such as E. Coli O157: H7, Salmonella, Hepatitis A, Campylobacter, Shigella, Norovirus and Listeria.

Every year about 325,000 people are hospitalized with a diagnosis of food poisoning, and 5,000 die.

How easy would it be, then, for a disgruntled worker or customer to intentionally contaminate our food supply?

Is it any wonder that our Government and the food industry are concerned that terrorists might also target our food supply?

Are you concerned? Should you be?

Assuring safe jobs is everybody’s business — including the unemployed who are seeking work. Not that we have a lot of  choices in this terrible job market.

Numerous individuals tell us they are exhausted, working every hour of overtime that they can get during the big holiday sales.  They’re not complaining –they seek the overtime because they know or suspect that they will be unemployed after the big holiday sales are over.  Then comes the job of seeking new employment.

It’s tempting to take any job that is offered, but we hope you can find one for which you would expect a very low level of accidents.   As you plan your job hunt and as you interview for various jobs,  seek information about accidents and safety.  Or, as the workload slows at the beginning of the year, look at the job that you currently have to see whether it could be made safer.

Here are some questions for which you may wish to seek answers:

• Has this organization ever received an OSHA citation? If so, how was it handled?
• What is this organization’s safety philosophy? Its safety program?
• What is the accident record for this organization, and how does that compare to others in the field?
• What is the accident record for this particular job, and how does that compare to similar jobs in other organizations?
• What are the normal working conditions for this job?
• What kinds of unsafe conditions might I encounter in this job?
• What is the role of my potential supervisor in accident prevention?
• What kind of insurance and/or worker’s compensation applies in case I do have an accident on this job?
• Based on what you hear or can observe, is this not a hostile environment that is likely to experience violent incidents in the future?

We sincerely hope that the employment situation improves in the coming year.  Meanwhile, have a blessed holiday, and good luck on finding or keeping a safe job.

Other plans supporting a new food safety system that is focused on preventive controls — not just response — and on holding companies responsible for safety problems have been recently introduced or passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 2749, H.R.1332, H.R.875), supported by both the Health and Human Services and the USDA, and also backed by various consumer groups and farm-to-table industries.

The Consumers Union is also on record as strongly calling for greater government regulation re. food safety.

Where do you stand on this issue?  Do you think the Federal Gov’t. should be doing more to protect our food supply? Or do you think the Gov’t is interfering with the food industry?

Workers can be a dangerous threat without making a threatening statement. Operating vehicles or machinery irresponsibly, for example, can put coworkers at risk.

Even some workers who appear just to be inconsiderate or too immature to take responsibility for their actions can be potentially dangerous. They are the ones who forget to secure the doors, fail to follow correct procedures on the assembly line, forget to turn off the electric hotplate in the lunchroom, light a cigarette too close to flammable materials, block emergency exits with equipment or merchandise, or simply fail to remain alert on the job. This can include daydreaming, experiencing dull reactions due to medications, or falling asleep because of sleep apnea or sleep deprivation at home.

Other individuals have mental problems or attitude problems about work that result in choices that subject their coworkers to unnecessary risks. Included here are workers who, consciously or unconsciously want to “get back at” a coworker or the organization. For example, they can intentionally leave doors unsecured, sabotage computer data or equipment, jam machines, give information to competitors, participate in espionage, etc. These individuals may fit the profile of someone who could commit workplace violence in the future as their needs, feelings, or emotions intensify.

Then, of course, there are individuals whose minds and hearts are filled with hate that compels them to become terrorists against those who believe differently. They may kidnap for ransom to support a cause, for example, or destroy people and businesses in their role as an independent “soldier” for an organized cause. These may be the most difficult to identify or to remove from the workplace in today’s climate of political correctness.

CASE:  “In a highly secure government installation, there was an employee who was a recent immigrant from _____. He took a loyalty oath to get security clearance to work in our company. Yet he held a deep commitment to helping that country, even to the point that he seemed willing to talk about our work with his friends ‘back home.’ This posed a high security risk for the U.S. He had been told to hold his tongue, but when he was with those he regarded as his countrymen (as opposed to regarding U.S. citizens as his countrymen), he still just talked and talked.

“Soon he reached the point where he would also talk about our country. He criticized the President on down to the Governor. Sometimes he would be so critical that we would feel like shooting him. He seemed so angry that he was not in his country, yet he wanted to stay here. His loyalties most surely lay outside the U.S. The fact that he could not be trusted had an immeasurable effect on the work that could be done at this installation.

“As you can imagine, all his coworkers hated him. No one wanted to be assigned to a project with him. No matter if you were just starting a project or deep into working on it, you could count on him going on a tirade about the terrible United States and how they had mistreated his country. Not only that, we were afraid this guy would someday reach his boiling point and do major damage to the installation where we worked, or worse. As workers, we don’t know the story behind why he was hired or why he was not let go.”

Which comes first: loyalty or political correctness? Protect yourself by letting your views be known to your company and your legislators.

Stress is not a simple phenomenon. It refers to individual responses to strong stimuli, which are called stressors. While some stress can be positive– it can motivate you to work to your top level of performance– other stress or too much stress clearly is negative. Positive stress is beneficial whereas negative stress can be harmful if it is not recognized and dealt with at an early stage.

Stress can be caused by “good” as well as “bad” things. Excessive pressure, unreasonable demands on your time, and bad news can all cause stress. But receiving a promotion with a raise can be stressful, too: like the stress of wondering if you can handle the new job, or the disappointment of receiving a smaller raise than you had expected and thus not being able to afford something you had planned on being able to afford.

Positive stress is experienced by meeting deadlines, becoming more innovative, being more productive, and accepting challenges. Negative stress occurs when the pressures of life, including work, increase to a level where the individual can no longer cope. In other words, pressure is healthy until it exceeds the person’s ability to cope and then it can cause illness. Negative stress is the form you want to avoid.

Negative stress can be seriously debilitating and the effects can be long-lasting. Management and organizations suffer because of absenteeism, reduced productivity, increased compensation premiums — medical insurance based on stress are higher than other claims.  Thus, finding answers to questions such as the following will tell you indirectly if too much stress is associated with a particular company or job:

• What is the level of turnover on this job?
• What are the major sources of stress on this job?
• What are the normal working conditions for this job?
• Does this job involve ever having to handle or be exposed to chemicals, biological agents, or the like?
• Does this job involve having to come into contact with people who are known to be sick?
• Does the company have a wellness program?
• Does the company have an Employee Assistance Program?