Shootings renew fears over workplace threats

Posted by Ross Arrowsmith on Monday, November 16th 2009 under Workplace violence

Three recent workplace shootings have again cast a spotlight on violence at work and the steps employers can take to recognize threats and protect employees, particularly in the ways they hire, fire or lay off workers.

“This certainly has been a busy week for us,” said Richard Denenberg, co-director of Workplace Solutions Inc., a Red Hook, N.Y.-based nonprofit crisis prevention consultant. “There is a lot to be learned from all of this.”

In one high-profile incident, on Nov. 5, in Temple, Texas, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, allegedly went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 U.S. soldiers and wounding 30 other individuals, most of them soldiers, before being apprehended.

One day later, Jason Rodriguez, 40, entered the Orlando, Fla., office of Reynolds, Smith & Hills Inc., an engineering firm from which he had been fired two years earlier, and fired several shots at employees, killing one and injuring five others.

And most recently, on Nov. 10 in Portland, Ore., the husband of an employee at a drug testing lab entered the building and shot and killed his wife before killing himself, reportedly after his wife had filed for divorce. Two other employees were wounded.

“It’s very difficult to predict these types of events,” said John Durkin, area chairman for Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.’s Chicago-based risk management services and critical incident prevention management division. “Who would have thought a military base would be a target? I certainly didn’t. People have to become more aware that these incidents happen, and you just don’t know when it will.”

From 1997 to 2007, there were more than 7,000 occupational homicides nationwide, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most of those incidents involved robberies; more than 1,000 involved work associates, according to the BLS. In 2008, it recorded 517 workplace homicides, a 52% decline from the high of 1,080 in 1994.

Tom Tripp, professor of management and operations at Washington State University in Vancouver and co-author of “Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge—and How to Stop It,” said that while the odds of a violent act taking place in the workplace are low, factors such as the economy, personal financial stresses, and job stability all play a role in increasing the threat of an outburst. In addition, he said, the shortage of case studies on such incidents makes it difficult to predict who will turn violent.

“Revenge and a sense of injustice is usually the cause for such incidents,” Mr. Tripp said, adding that employers forced to make job cuts due to economic conditions need to take caution when breaking bad news and be sure they tell employees the “right way.” That includes being open about possible layoffs and regularly communicating with poorly performing employees, making layoffs or terminations less of a surprise. An employer should provide reasons why an individual was fired, he said, making the employee “less likely to create a motive for revenge.”

“Employees that become aggressive see it as a way of getting even for something,” Mr. Tripp said. “They feel they’ve been unjustly treated by the organization and they want to find a way to make it right.”

In Mr. Rodriguez’s case, he was reportedly let go from his position at Reynolds, Smith & Hills for poor performance two years ago. He then endured financial strain after not being able to find a job with similar pay and ended up taking a job at a Subway sandwich shop.

RS&H declined to comment.

Mr. Rodriguez reportedly told authorities after his arrest that the engineering firm “left him to rot” and made it difficult for him to obtain unemployment benefits, which is why, two years later, he stormed the premises with a gun. In an incident on Sept. 17, Mr. Rodriguez drove his SUV into the side of the Subway where he worked, one day after he was sent home for being verbally abusive, according to an Associated Press report.

R.J. Kirschner, chief executive officer and president of Huntington, Calif.-based security consultant Threat Management & Protection Inc., and his colleague, Chief Operating Officer Paul French, said employers can identify troubled employees a variety of ways, starting with hiring.

“It starts with the hiring process and doing a real thorough background check by getting all the necessary documents pulled and checked for accuracy and content,” Mr. French said. “Depending on the state, it is possible an employer can go back and look at records from seven to 10 years ago.”

Several experts also said employers need to train employees to be aware and identify potential violent behavior (see box), and to have a communication plan in place.

Communications during a shooting could be made using internal phones, Mr. French said, adding that employers should have an area designated as a “safe haven” and an evacuation plan. He also suggested employees could call 911 from a speakerphone and leave it on, so police can hear what’s happening in the building.

Further, experts add that employers must have—and enforce—a zero-tolerance violence policy, which includes not allowing firearms to be carried on the premises.

As for how insurers view workplace violence events, Mr. Durkin said underwriters generally will “look favorably” on employers who have invested in educating employees on how to identify and handle a violent situation and if they have a critical incident plan should an event occur.

“As an employer, you have to be alert to possible triggers of violence and to remember to always keep your guard up,” Mr. Denenberg said. “You have to be aware—sometimes it may be years later—that someone out there may want revenge.”