During one of today’s sessions at the 2009 Work, Stress, and Health conference, I presented a short paper titled Is There a “Business Case” for Workplace Bullying Legislation?  I offered four basic propositions:

1.  From an employer’s standpoint, there is a strong business case for taking workplace bullying seriously as an employment relations problem.  Mounting evidence indicates that workplace bullying results in reduced productivity and employee loyalty, increased absenteeism and related costs, increased attrition and related costs, and greater risk of employee lawsuits even in the absence of a workplace bullying law.

2.  From an employer’s standpoint, workplace bullying legislation creates undesirable liability exposure.  Enactment of bullying legislation would indeed increase employer costs for defending and preventing lawsuits.

3.  Nevertheless, absent significant liability exposure, few employers take workplace bullying seriously.  Few employers voluntarily provide enforceable protections against bullying to their employees.  In the 2007 Workplace Bullying Institute/Zogby public opinion survey on workplace bullying, respondents reported that when employers were made aware of alleged bullying behaviors, 62 percent either ignored the problem or made it worse.

In addition, recent history is rife with examples of how employers have been complicit in blatant, brazen worker mistreatment in the absence of liability exposure: Racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for whistle blowing are but a few examples.

4.  Advocates for legal reform must build a civil rights case positing that workplace bullying is a malicious violation of human dignity that denies people a right to earn a living free of psychological abuse.  Workplace bullying threatens mental health, physical health, personal and family relationships, careers, and livelihoods.  No other such common and destructive form of worker mistreatment so escapes the protective reach of modern American employment law.

The Healthy Workplace Bill, model anti-bullying legislation that I authored, provides severely bullied employees with a legal claim for malicious harm. It also provides incentives for employers to act preventively and responsively toward workplace bullying and includes provisions that preclude or discourage frivolous litigation.

To get involved in efforts to enact the Healthy Workplace Bill, go to: http://workplacebullyinglaw.org/.

I’m attending and participating in the 8th Work, Stress, and Health Conference, held this year in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  The conference kicked off today with a keynote address by Steven Greenhouse, New York Times labor and work reporter and author of The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker (2008).

Greenhouse identified a cluster of reasons why the American workplace is becoming more stressed out:

• Wage stagnation;
• Lack of health insurance coverage;
• More hours at work (at least until the meltdown);
• Computers and technology in the workplace;
• Constant demands to increase productivity and profits;
• Downsizing and reduced job security;
• Short-term, performance-based job compensation;
• More self-funding of retirement;
• Globalization of labor markets;
• Increased income inequality;
• Greater use of temporary workers and independent contractors who are not provided with job security or benefits;
• Greater use of vulnerable immigrant workers, especially undocumented workers;
• Reduced enforcement of labor protections, such as wage laws and workplace safety regulations; and,
• Weakening of labor unions.

Although he was running out of time, he also identified a cluster of “big-picture” responses to get us back on track toward less stressed-out workers and workplaces:

• Reduce unemployment;
• Increase enforcement of labor protections;
• Provide universal health care coverage;
• Rebuild retirement security measures; and,
• “Revalorize” workers by restoring their importance and dignity.

Whereas many keynote addresses are meant to be uplifting and inspirational, this was sobering and specific, sprinkled with disturbing facts, figures, and stories drawn from his book.  It was a reminder — especially to those of us in the U.S. — of just how much work we have to do to create healthier workplaces.

(My recent law review article, “Human Dignity and American Employment Law,” echoes many of these themes and cites Greenhouse’s book with approval.  For a pdf copy, free of charge: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299176.)

The International Labour Organization, the labor agency of the United Nations, reports that the global recession slowed wage growth dramatically last year and that the trend will likely worsen this year:

Global growth in real wages slowed dramatically in 2008 as a result of the economic crisis and is expected to drop even further this year despite signs of a possible economic recovery, the International Labour Organization said.

“The continued deterioration of real wages worldwide raises serious questions about the true extent of an economic recovery, especially if government rescue packages are phased out too early. Wage deflation deprives national economies of much needed demand and seriously affects confidence”, said Manuela Tomei, Director, ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Programme and lead author of the study.

The report will be discussed at the ILO Governing Body meetings that begin today, November 5.

ILO news release: http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang–en/WCMS_116503/index.htm

Full ILO 2009 report (pdf): http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_116500.pdf

The first woman to serve as a yeoman warder — more popularly known as a “Beefeater” — at the historic Tower London has been subjected to ongoing bullying and harassment on the job.  Sylvia Hui and Gregory Katz filed this story for the Associated Press:

Moira Cameron — a veteran of long military service — was named a warder at the Tower two years ago. Hers was supposed to be a happy story about how a bastion of male supremacy could become a place where women, too, could serve queen and country.

On Monday, embarrassed Tower officials conceded that Cameron had apparently been subjected to a campaign of bullying and harassment conducted by some of her resentful male colleagues. They said two male warders have been suspended and a third is under investigation for suspected harassment of Cameron.

What Ms. Cameron has experienced is inexcusable, but at least in England the term “bullying” is widely recognized in describing abuse at work.  This is one sign of how much work we have to do in the U.S.  Time and again I hear from bullying targets about how validating it is simply to learn there is a term that captures what they have been enduring.  We must continue to put workplace bullying into the mainstream of our discussions about the experience of work.

For the full article, “Tower of London Beefeaters suspended for bullying”: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_beefeater

For Japanese-Americans, perhaps the proudest story of the Second World War is that of the “Go For Broke!” regiment, more officially known as the U.S. Army 442nd Regimental Combat Team.

The 442nd fought in Europe.  Made up almost entirely of Japanese-Americans, the regiment became the most highly decorated combat unit in Army history, while suffering one of the highest casualty rates of the war.  Many members of the 442nd joined the Army while leaving behind family in relocation camps established by the federal government as part of the Japanese-American internment.

This past weekend, surviving members of the 442nd reunited with fellow veterans from a Texas battalion that in 1944 found itself surrounded by German troops.  The 442nd broke through the German lines and rescued the battalion.  It suffered 814 casualties in the course of rescuing the 217 Texans.  Juan Lozano, reporting for the Associated Press, filed this story about the gathering: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haYfoygw4pv_uAasUSFAnM1Avw3AD9BN4T0G2

All too often, newly arrived ethnic groups must prove themselves in battle on behalf of their new country in order to gain acceptance.  Because of the war, Japanese-Americans also had to prove their loyalty in the midst of a conflict in which their country of origin was one of the Axis nations.

It is quite possible that many of the opportunities I have had in my life as a third-generation Japanese-American can be traced, however indirectly, to the service of those troops.  I am the fortunate beneficiary of the fact that they did their jobs so bravely and honorably.  My late uncle, Kenneth Watanabe, was among those who served in the 442nd and who fortunately survived the war to live a long and good life.  Here’s to Uncle Kenny and his fellow soldiers and the sacrifices they made so that later generations could enjoy more of the blessings of liberty and opportunity.

Here’s a fascinating psychological take on our current economic crisis: Journalist and cultural historian Neal Gabler’s typical beat is the entertainment industry, but in a Boston Globe op-ed column he turns his attention to the recession and the psychological dysfunction that has been driving it.  He is among a growing number of thinking people who are asking questions such as:

How can bailed-out investment houses be doling out millions of dollars in bonuses to the very executives who help to create the meltdown in the first place?

How can the credit industry be raising interest rates on credit cards to unprecedented levels?

How can the financial services industry be devising new risky investment vehicles even after all that we’ve just been through?

In response, Gabler points to the rise of the “economic sociopath,” and he cites the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by psychologists and psychiatrists:

The manual describes a broad category called “antisocial personality disorder,’’ which includes those whom we commonly describe as sociopaths. According to the manual, this disorder manifests itself, among other ways, in “deceitfulness’’ as indicated by “conning others for personal profit or pleasure’’; “irresponsibility’’; and “lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.’’

One could easily make the case that Bernie Madoff, R. Allen Stanford, the subprime mortgage pushers, the derivatives dealers, and the rest of the Wall Street gang were all economic sociopaths who were actively hostile to the interests of the American people and wholly devoid of conscience.

Gabler’s thesis makes eminent sense.  These folks knew the tragic endgame that was in sight, yet they squeezed everything they could from this economy until it imploded.  Many of their victims — yes, victims – are suffering now; lives have been changed permanently for the worse.  In the midst of all this, people who have profited mightily from that pain continue to devise new ways to inflict it.

Gabler expresses doubts about the effectiveness of stronger regulation as a long-term solution.  I believe that beefing up the substance and enforcement of regulations is a start, but I agree that the problem goes deeper than that.  Sociopaths are more common that you might think; one estimate says that 4 of out 100 people have sociopathic tendencies.  Unfortunately, they appear to be disproportionately drawn to vocations such as high finance, where they can inflict wreckage in the name of entrepreneurship.  How do you regulate that?

For Gabler’s “The Gaggle of Economic Sociopaths”: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/31/the_gaggle_of_economic_sociopaths/

Many months ago I blogged about my affinity for the HBO series The Wire, which portrays gritty urban life on the streets of Baltimore, with an ongoing focus on the city’s drug wars.  The series has won deserved critical acclaim, and now it appears to be sparking positive social change.

The Boston Globe reports that Sonja Sohn, the actress who played Detective Shakima Greggs on the series, has founded a non-profit organization, ReWIRED for Change, that “tries to help youths in underserved communities.”  Sohn is working with a local activist to create a school curriculum that uses episodes of The Wire:

For almost a year, one of the show’s stars has been working with a Boston community activist to create a curriculum based on “The Wire’’. The program would gather a group of young people already involved in the criminal system or at risk of being drawn in, and for at least five hours a week for at least six weeks, show them episodes.

In an interview with the Globe, Sohn talks about how her own background has fueled her desire to take this path:

I think my own experiences inform me more than anything … My family loved me and if you have love that’s the difference between someone becoming a sociopath and someone having a shot at the end of the day. I was loved, but there were bases that weren’t covered. There was a certain amount of emotional neglect outside of the home, there were abuses which led me to [experiment] with the drug life. When the idea for this organization came up and when the idea for the program came up and when I started to facilitate the program every step of the way it became more and more obvious that I was basically born to do this … This was one of the most profound purposes of my existence.

People discover their missions in life through a variety of circumstances.  Here, an individual’s own life experiences and her dramatic portrayal of a Baltimore detective combined to inspire a brand of grassroots social entrepreneurship that addresses the very despair and hopelessness reflected in some of the most gut-wrenching episodes of the TV series.

Maria Cramer’s article in the Globe about ReWIRED: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/29/the_wire_sparks_a_connection/

Globe’s interview with Sohn: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/10/qa_actor_see_th.html

One form of bullying, shunning, and isolation that doesn’t get enough attention is what happens to folks in academic and research positions who take a position that happens to collide or conflict with the conventional wisdom.  In the hard sciences especially, but in the social sciences and humanities as well, history shows us that life can get mighty uncomfortable for those who question the prevailing views within their disciplines.

Such appears to be the case in the debate over flu vaccinations.

Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not someone who swears off all vaccinations.  Many years, I’ve taken the seasonal flu shot, and I believe I’m up to date on whatever other shots I’m supposed to have.  Furthermore, as I explain in more detail below, I’m petrified of a deadly flu pandemic.  However, I also have concerns over the mounting number of obligatory and semi-obligatory vaccinations, as well as the pharmaceutical industry’s role in generating demand for their products.

It was with that attitude that I approached a lengthy article in the November issue of The Atlantic, “Does the Vaccine Matter?,” highlighting research that questions the efficacy of flu shots and claims made by drug manufacturers about their effectiveness.  Health writers Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer describe some of the medical establishment’s reactions to researchers who are challenging the dominant orthodoxy.  This article does not adopt the worldview of the hard-core anti-vaccine faction; it simply questions whether flu vaccines do what they claim to do.

For example, it cites the work of physician and researcher Lisa Jackson, who led a 2004 study concluding that the flu vaccine may not have any effect in reducing mortality levels.  One authority on influenza and vaccines is quoted as labeling her research “beautiful” and “classic studies in epidemiology.”  And yet she was warned by others that ”no good” could come of her research.  Top-ranked medical journals would not publish her work.

The article also references the work of physician and researcher Tom Jefferson, who has challenged claims that a flu vaccine can reduce all deaths by 50-90 percent.  In his view, it would be a “miracle,” not a vaccine, for something to produce such a result.  Jefferson has been shunned by other colleagues at professional gatherings due to the positions he has taken.

In the blogosphere, some of the reactions to the piece have been sharply critical, especially concerning references to Tom Jefferson.  Effect Measure states as part of a long response:

Unfortunately by taking as their main example flu vaccine during a pandemic, they have not only picked the wrong example but created more confusion at a time when there’s already too much.

…I understand the rhetorical value of having a martyr-hero [Dr. Jefferson] when pitching a story, but this was a particularly irresponsible time to pull this stunt.

And here’s a snippet from another long commentary, this one in Respectful Insolence:

At or near the top of the list has to be a biased and poorly framed article that appeared in The Atlantic this month. I tell ya, I’ve been a subscriber to The Atlantic for at least 25 years, and for the first time ever I’m seriously tempted to let my subscription lapse when it expires early next year. In the 25 years I’ve been a subscriber, I’ve never seen such a credulous, irresponsible piece of “journalism” appear in The Atlantic.

I am hardly qualified to use any public medium to preach a hard position on the flu vaccine question, but as an academician I do understand how research and scholarly communities might attempt to bully, shun, or ignore those whose work leads to unpopular or inconvenient conclusions.  The “go along, get along” attitude all too often prevails in the world of ideas, and those who confront conventional wisdom  — even when backed by research and analysis — may well find themselves marginalized by the dominant group.

The process is understandable, if not defensible: In the realm of research and scholarship, one may build an entire career around staking a claim to certain bodies of knowledge and scientific conclusions.  Especially in fields related to science and health, there may be a lot of money at stake as well.  Those who make wild claims from the “fringes” can be easily ignored, but when others come along and back their challenges with research studies, that’s when invested Powers that Be may start resisting and even lashing out.

Of course, members of the anti-vaccine crowd can get awfully strident as well.  Though I agree with questioning some of the motivations of Big Pharma and researchers who shill for them, I’m alarmed at wholesale criticisms of a form of preventive care that has saved or rescued untold numbers of lives (smallpox or polio, anyone?) and with virulent attacks directed at legitimate researchers whose work happens to come out on the side of vaccination.  (“An Epidemic of Fear” by Amy Wallace in the November issue of Wired magazine aptly raises those concerns and makes a case for getting the flu shots.)

Still and all, genuine bullying requires a power imbalance, and in health and medicine, that balance tips strongly in favor of the medical establishment.  Many conventional wisdoms defended by that community have fallen by the wayside over the years, so perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss those who question long-held beliefs about the effectiveness and safety of various prevention, treatment, and care options.  (Remember a time not so long ago when antibiotics were being dispensed willy-nilly?)  Those who question the efficacy of flu vaccines may turn out to be wrong, but they appear to have raised credible concerns.  Maybe that very credibility has triggered such an aggressive response.

For “Does the Vaccine Matter?” in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

For blogosphere responses to “Does the Vaccine Matter?”:

Effect Measure: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/10/journalists_sink_in_the_atlant.php (Comment 18 is a lengthy response from Brownlee and Lenzer.)

Respectful Insolence: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/when_methodolatry_strikes_over_h1n1_influenza.php

For “An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All” in Wired: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/

Sidebar:  Lest readers think I’m taking the flu question too lightly because I’m acknowledging criticisms of flu vaccines, I assure you that for years the possibility of a flu pandemic has scared the daylights out of me.  In fact, the commentary that really shook me up over the weekend was Robin Cook’s piece in Foreign Policy, in which the good doctor and thriller writer posed the scenario of the swine flu and bird flu mixing together to create an influenza pandemic that would rival the 1918 outbreak or even plagues of centuries past.

Of course, online comments to that piece have dismissed Cook by saying he’s simply trying to sell books.  I don’t think he needs the money, but it’s easier to believe that than to imagine the possibility he wrote about.  Here’s the Cook piece: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/15/plague_a_new_thriller_of_the_coming_pandemic

If you want to comment:  I’m happy to take comments on the topic of intellectual bullying, shunning, and isolation, including behaviors related to research on vaccines.  But please, no comments about the vaccine vs. anti-vaccine debates.  There are plenty of other sites for those discussions!

Glee, Fox TV’s musical comedy-drama about a high school glee club in Ohio, has been tagged the new “feel good” hit of the Fall season.  With an ensemble cast recruited largely from the Broadway stage, it mixes sharp humor, the pathos of high school life, and plenty of song & dance numbers.

Glee also gives us a big helping of school and workplace bullying.  The glee club members are bullied mercilessly by some of the “in” kids at school.  Members of the football team routinely give “slushie facials” (dumping or tossing Big Gulp-ish frozen drinks) to glee club kids, including to teammates who joined the club because they happen to like both football and singing.

There’s more bullying at the faculty level, where a messed up cheerleading coach obsessively plots the demise of the glee club and their director.  Just like many real workplace bullies, the coach’s destructive activities at work are fueled by dysfunctional aspects of her life in general.

Mainly through humor (some of it hilariously over the top), Glee gently tackles topics such as peer pressure, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability.  And because the glee kids happen to be pretty talented, they ultimately become the stars, performing with enthusiasm, skill, and heart.

On occasion Glee takes a time out to make a point.  In the most recent episode, the football team’s quarterback, who also is in the glee club, has been given an ultimatum by his coach:  It’s either football or glee, but you can’t do both.  The young man approaches his coach and says:

I see a future where it’s cool to be in glee club.  Where you can play football and sing & dance and no one gets down on you for it.  Where the more different you are, the better.

It’s a nice scene, delivered in an understated way.  If you’re long past high school but remember what it was like, it may make you wince to think how many kids have been pressured into making choices that ultimately denied them a chance to explore all of their intellectual, artistic, and athletic interests.

In the real world, life is not a musical; bullying at school and at work cannot be brushed off with a rousing closing number.  But that’s no reason to dismiss the feel-good messages of Glee, including the importance of pursuing one’s passion even if others aren’t into it.  Now there’s a lesson for kids and adults alike.

(Perhaps art does indeed reflect life: New episodes of Glee will return following the World Series on Fox.  Go Yankees!)

Boston Globe correspondent Maggie Jackson reports on a study indicating that worker health is on the decline, and that worker morale and engagement are likely to be among the casualties.

As the national health care debate heats up, a timely report from the nonprofit Families and Work Institute details the worrying effect of a stressed-out, time-strapped, overworked era. Too many of us are fat, sick, sleepless, and inactive. Just 28 percent of US workers say their health is excellent, down from 34 percent six years ago. And businesses are suffering as a result, not simply from rising costs for health care. Workers in poor health are less likely to be loyal, engaged, and satisfied with their jobs, the findings show.

Of course, the recession is a significant aggravating factor.  New York Times reporter Louis Uchitelle, whose coverage of the human consequences of the recession is worthy of praise, recently wrote about the personal and economic impact of a 50 percent pay cut experienced by an airline captain:

The dark blue captain’s hat, with its golden oak-leaf clusters, sits atop a bookcase in Bryan Lawlor’s home, out of reach of the children. . . . He is now in the co-pilot’s seat in the 50-seat commuter jets he flies, not for any failure in skill. He wears his captain’s stripes, he explains, to make that point. But with air travel down, his employer cut costs by downgrading 130 captains, those with the lowest seniority, to first officers, automatically cutting the wage of each by roughly 50 percent — to $34,000 in Mr. Lawlor’s case.

Jackson’s Boston Globe article, “Sick, on the Job”: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/10/18/workers_health_suffers_as_trying_economic_times_ratchet_up_job_stress/

Uchitelle’s New York Times article, “Still on the Job, but at Half the Pay”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/economy/14income.html