National survey finds support for workplace bullying law

September 7th, 2010

Labor Day 2010 research findings from the Workplace Bullying Institute national scientific survey shows support for the Healthy Workplace Bill.

The question asked: “Do you support or oppose enactment of workplace bullying laws that would protect all workers from what can be considered malicious, health-harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers?” This is the language of the HWB. Here are the results for the entire national sample as well as by political ideology and race.

YES = all support Strongly Support Somewhat Support Not Sure/ No Opinion Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose
National sample 64.2% 37.5% 26.7% 12% 10.8% 13%
Liberals 89.5 62 27.5 4.3 2.4 3.8
Moderates 77.8 48.2 29.6 10.5 7.5 4.2
Conservatives 47.1 20.5 26.6 13.6 16.9 22.5
African-Americans 73.2 54.8 18.4 12.9 5.1 8.8
Hispanics 65.9 40.9 25 5.7 11.2 17.2
Asians 63.8 37.5 26.3 19.7 5.1 11.4
Whites 63 34.2 28.8 12.4 11.8 12.8

For comparison, consider that the Sunday newspaper magazine, Parade, asked the same question in a July 18, 2010 article titled: “Workplace Bullying: Do We Need a Law?” The magazine’s online poll results found overwhelming support for a law — 92% yes.

According to a WBI Instant Poll posted on July 23, 2010, 96.8% of 252 online respondents stated their support for a workplace bullying law.

Readers will want to digest Suffolk Law Professor David Yamada’s thorough and thoughtful Labor Day 2010 analysis of the liberal, moderate and conservative features of the Healthy Workplace Bill. He is the bill’s author.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute


Survey 1: Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 4,210 adults from 8/4/10 to 8/11/10. A sampling of Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error is +/- 1.5 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. The MOE calculation is for sampling error only. Totals in topline reporting may not equal 100% due to rounding.





Healthy Workplace Bill described on CNN

August 5th, 2010

On July 26, Adam Cohen, Yale Law School lecturer and author of the Time magazine article about our bill, appeared on CNN American Morning show. He accurately described the Healthy Workplace Bill and discussed implications for employers without fear-mongering or hyperbole. Thank you, Adam, for reading and understanding the text of the bill and communicating it well.

You can view the video at the WBI website or on the CNN site.





HWB author Yamada on MSNBC

July 24th, 2010

David Yamada, Suffolk Univ. Law Professor and author of the anti-bullying legislation for the U.S. — the Healthy Workplace Bill, appeared on MSNBC at 12:50 pm July 23. He distinguished clearly routine rudeness from malicious bullying that carries health-harming consequences. You can download Prof. Yamada’s publications from a link in the WBI Research Library and visit his blog for the New Workplace Institute.

Note the correct spelling of his name Yamada, not Yamata.





SHRM opposes anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill

June 18th, 2010

The advocacy group for Human Resources (HR) issued an alert for SHRM members in June 2010 to oppose the NY versions of the HWB. In brief, Bob Carragher, SHRM’s manager of government relations (chief national lobbyist) and Susan Corcoran, NY state legislative director (state lobbyist) claim our legislation is “bad for business and bad for New York.”  The two issued a “Talking Points” memo related to the bills that fell into our hands. Here is the text verbatim with WBI counterpoint in italics:

Human resource professionals, by the very nature of their positions, are dedicated to advocating for the interests of all employees in their organizations.

[Not true. HR is a management support function and acts accordingly. HR is not in the employee advocacy business, only unions are. To say otherwise is disingenuous.]

One of the many daily tasks of an effective HR practitioner is ensuring a positive work environment for all.  Recognizing that an abusive work environment can have a serious effect on both the morale and health of their employees, while also seriously impacting the image and profitability of an organization, most employers (through their HR departments) have conducted extensive educational/awareness programs on the negative impact “bullying” can have in the workplace.

[Ensuring a positive environment for all?  Give me a break! By allowing health-harming bullying to continue unabated as HR departments do, HR sustains an employee health and safety risk for those not fortunate enough to be considered credible to disbelieving HR types. In 2007, our national survey found that 44% of employers did nothing about bullying and 18% actually worsened situations for bullied individuals. So, where are the "extensive" awareness programs about bullying? And if they even exist, as run by HR, why are they so ineffective as to not put a dent into bullying's prevalence. Perhaps because Bob and Susan (above) can't bring themselves to take bullying seriously. That's why they put it in quotes -- "bullying." Similarly, HR workers like to define themselves as HR "professionals."]

A. 05414B, as currently drafted, could have serious ramifications for employers doing business in New York State.  In short, the bill could:
- Strain the day-to-day employer/employee relations in workplaces throughout the Empire State.  Many employers make great efforts to provide a positive work environment, backing these efforts with formal dispute resolution processes, written codes of conduct and open door policies.

[Great efforts to create safe work environments would produce results and eliminate bullying. The very existence of bullying is testimony that either the efforts are not great or HR is completely ineffective. Ironic that the lobbyists use the term "strain" which has meaning in the occupational health literature. Job strain refers to increasing task demand while simultaneously depriving a worker control over her or his taskload. Dispute resolution refers to forcing mediation down the throats of the already compromised targeted person, codes of conduct are as empty as flowery mission, vision, values statements that ring hollow, and open doors (?) are useless if  nothing results from meetings in the rooms with open or closed doors. Open doors implies that management will listen. Not if their favorite bully "Sleezy" is being exposed. Sleezy can never do wrong. This is all drivel.]

- Undermine good faith efforts by employers to establish positive work environments.  In addition, this legislation would significantly increase litigation and employers’ exposure to liability for lost wages, medical expenses, emotional distress, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

[Bob and Susan have not read the bill and Susan works at JacksonLewis, dragonslayers for corporate masters. According to the bill itself, employers who take care to prevent and correct abusive conduct will be rewarded with escape from (affirmative defenses for) vicarious liability. The bill when it becomes law will reward good employers. The careful reference to good faith rather than actual employer efforts that result in a policy and faithful enforcement of it is not an accident. Shrmy wants credit for trying even if they fall short.]

- Create an incentive for certain individuals to “game the system” in an effort to seek monetary gain.  With the possibility of reaping a windfall from civil awards of compensatory and punitive damages, unscrupulous individuals could be tempted to claim physical or psychological harm due to an abusive work environment, requiring their employer to incur legal fees and lost work time defending themselves against such charges.

[Here Bob and Susan are branding the majority of employees, the non-supervisory ones, as fraudulent, unscrupulous schemers. How did these people get hired? Who did the screening? Oops, that was HR. What about ethics training? Again, HR. And if a person makes a claim of psychological harm, shouldn't HR care about that? After all, Bob and Susan stated above that HR advocates for "the interests of all employees. Balderdash. This bulleted point shows the actual contempt HR and corp defense attorneys have for employees who dare sue. Bob and Susan did not read the bill. It is not sufficient that the misconduct be abusive and health-harming, it must also be repeated and malicious.

The only real system that is gamed is the HR "sham investigation" whereby the bully is asked if he committed the atrocities. He says "no." HR concludes the target-complainant is a liar and begins branding the target as troublemaker. As WBI research shows, 64% of targets lose their jobs for having done nothing more than being in harm's way when a bully came calling. The "HR system" is a cruel one of health harm and job/career loss. The only schemers are bullies and their accomplices, HR.]

- Prove as a deterrent to drawing businesses to locate in New York State.  Given that New York would be the first state in the country to provide such a right, this legislation could have a chilling effect on the business climate of our state.

[This is the Bloomberg/Chamber of Commerce Big Lie. Where will they go? If they want the talent that NY state residents bring, the biz stays in the state. Otherwise, if they are big enough, they go offshore to China. If that happens, they won't take HR with them. We say that if you have to be abusive to run a state or municipal agency or a company in NY State, then you should lose your charter to do so. Will it take the Foxconn rash of worker suicides to get American employers to stop the abuse?]

End of SHRM Talking Points

There you have it. HR, the folks with “human” in their job title choose to lobby against the humans working for them in favor of obscure, inanimate needs of an impersonal corporate entity. Little wonder they have little credibility in the C-suite. Though this lapdog, ingratiating fealty to corporate masters is designed to make them appear allies to the CEO, the toadying up, they still won’t gain the respect HR craves.

The dramatic opposition to working people captured in this lobbying document by HR cements the already negative societal impression. It should remove any lingering doubt by the most optimistic and uncritical soul that HR is not your friend or advocate. HR does not deserve workers’ trust, ever!

If HR opposes stopping abuse in the American workplace, then it necessarily seeks to promote it. Based on HR’s unconscionable reaction to bullying when it is currently reported, that is clearly the case.

Please write directly to Bob Carragher at   Robert.Carragher@shrm.org
and  Susan Corcoran  at corcors@jacksonlewis.com  to let them know what you think about SHRM’s position and the ethicality of their lobbying work.

G. Namie





D.C. policy advocacy group supports the HWB

June 14th, 2010

The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a venerable political and policy advocacy organization established in 1947, adopted a resolution supporting the Healthy Workplace Bill legislation at its June 2010 convention. The resolutions resulted from action by ADA Board member law professor David Yamada. We thank the organization and its president, Michael J. Wilson, who with ADA legislative director, Darryl Fagin, met with, and encouraged, WBI representatives in April.





New York bill held in 2010; Advocates redouble effort for 2011

June 9th, 2010

The NY Assembly Labor Committee Chair Susan John recently told the Wall Street Journal “No other state in the country has a law like this.” She was referring to the WBI anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. A vote in her committee on June 8 ends the bill’s journey for 2009-10. The vote was not on the merits of the bill. Instead, the vote was technically whether to vote or “hold.” It was held and will not get an Assembly floor vote this session.

According to one reporter’s account, the Chair suggested the hold before polling the committee, thus killing the bill two weeks before the end of the 2-year legislative session.

Susan John is not seeking re-election. She never scheduled a hearing for the HWB in any version since first introduced in 2007. She could have been a populist hero, but she chose to support the business lobby. There were nearly 50 Assembly members who signed on as co-sponsors. She ignored their wishes. The Senate had passed the bill on May 12 by a large majority. She ignored the other chamber’s wishes.

Now the working people of New York have to wait another year or two for the chance to make the bill a law. WBI was asked if our NY citizen lobbying group, the NY Healthy Workplace Advocates will be there again in 2011, and they are certain to add to the list of 50 Assembly co-sponsors and 10 Seantors.

Make no mistake, this tireless group of volunteers will redouble their efforts for the 2011-12 session after this setback. A new Labor chair and new Governor will be in place. And if those individuals choose to resist offering the modest employee protections that the employer-friendly A5414B and S1823B provided, they will risk losing the backing of the 1.8 million New Yorkers who are painfully familiar with the ravages of malicious, health-harming, abusive misconduct at work.





In Memoriam for IL Healthy Workplace Bill Sponsor

June 7th, 2010

Illinois House Rep. Eddie Washington (D-60-Waukegan) died suddenly on Friday June 4 at age 56 of a heart attack. He is survived by seven children and his wife, Flor. Read the local news coverage. Mr. Washington picked up sponsorship of HB 374 when Art Turner, the original House sponsor, stepped away. Sen. Delgado carried the bill in the Senate and it was amended dramatically. After the bill passed the Senate on March 18, 2010, Eddie Washington fought hard inside the House Labor Committee to have the bill retain its integrity. We looked forward to his strong, principled support in 2011. There will be other sponsors to take his place, but no one will replace him as husband, father, mentor and friend. He will be missed. All of us at WBI extend our condolences to the Washington family.





Bipartisan consensus at last

June 2nd, 2010

N.Y. Senate passes bill for bully-free workplaces

By Mike Schlicht and Tom Witt, June 1, 2010, 12:00 am

Something remarkable occurred in the New York State Senate on May 12, and it didn’t involve petty political infighting or allegations of ethical lapses. Instead, senators from both sides of the aisle came together to pass – by a 45 to 16 margin – the Healthy Workplace Bill, which is designed to protect all workers from severe, disabling workplace bullying.

The bipartisan effort was led by Senators Thomas Morahan (R-Rockland Co.) and George Onorato (D-Queens), the bill’s prime Senate sponsors. The next stop is the State Assembly, where the bipartisan prime Assembly sponsors are Steve Englebright (D-Suffolk) and Bob Barra (R-Nassau), and hopes are running high that this spirit of cooperation will carry the bill up to the governor’s desk.

Read the rest of this entry »





What opponents say about our anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill

May 30th, 2010

Updated May 30

Latest news coverage of the May 12 NY Senate passage of S 1823B. WBI addresses the distortions.
Read the rest of this entry »





45 - 16, NY Senate passes HWB S 1823 B

May 13th, 2010

New York State Senator Thomas P. Morahan, Chairman of the Committee on Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities today secured Senate passage of his landmark legislation (S.1823-B) which establishes a civil cause of action for employees who are subjected to an abusive work environment. The May 12 Senate floor vote was 45 in favor, 16 against, 1 abstention.

Read the rest of this entry »