In the news

It has been a year of prominent news stories related to the workplace, especially the avalanche of accounts concerning sexual harassment. Here are many of the 2017 news stories in which I’ve been quoted or where my work has been discussed:

• Beth Teitell, Working Bullying Remains in the Shadows, Boston Globe (December 2017);
• Deborah Becker & Martha Bebinger, The Legal Differences Between Sexual Harassment and Workplace Bullying, WBUR-FM “Bostonomix” (December 2017);
• Rebecca Koenig, Battling Bullying in the Workplace, U.S. News & World Report (December 2017); 
• Jeff Horwitz & Jake Pearson, Accusations of misconduct followed top gossip editor, Associated Press wire story (December 2017);
• David Lieberman, To end sexual harassment on the job, end workplace bullying, Los Angeles Times (November 2017);
• Travis Waldron, Weinstein Board Says It Didn’t Know Of Sexual Harassment Allegations. Experts Don’t Buy It, Huffington Post (October 2017);
• Kari Paul & Maria Lamagna, The damaging, incalculable price of sexual harassment, MarketWatch (October 2017);
• Madison Alder, Using Harvey for Political Tweets Could Get You Fired, Bloomberg BNA (September 2017);
• Jon Steingart, Can You Fire Someone for Attending a Rally of Racists?, Bloomberg BNA (August 2017);
• Cale Guthrie Weissman, James Damore’s Legal Case Against Google Isn’t So Clear, Fast Company (August 2017);
• Bianca Mestiza & Sophie Johnson, Access to internships perpetuates inequality, The Ithacan (April 2017) (student newspaper at Ithaca College).

Top 2017 reads

image courtesy of gallery.yopriceville.com

Hello dear readers, here are the top posts published here during 2017, as measured by “hits” or page views. I’ve divided them into two categories, in recognition of the fact that the overwhelming share of online searches that lead to this blog are about workplace bullying and related topics.

Workplace bullying, mobbing, and abuse

1. Gaslighting at work (March)
2. Trauma-Informed Legal Perspectives on Workplace Bullying and Mobbing (June)
3. Workplace bullying: HR to the rescue? (March)
4. How insights on abusive relationships inform our understanding of workplace bullying and mobbing (April)
5. Workplace bullying: Acknowledging grief (April)
6. Male targets of workplace bullying (June)
7. “Jerks at work” vs. workplace soul stalkers (November)
8. Workplace bullying: Blitzkrieg edition (April)
9. Workplace bullying and mobbing: Individual vs. organizational accountability (February)
10. Addressing workplace bullying, mobbing, and incivility in higher education: The roles of law, cultures, codes, and coaching (July)
11. When workplace predators silence and intimidate their targets (November)
12. Bystander intervention in workplace bullying situations (January)
13. Workplace bullying and mobbing: Resources for HR (May)
14. Passing workplace anti-bullying laws during the Age of Trump (January)
15. Ageism in the American workplace (and its continuing relevance to workplace bullying) (January)

Other Topics

1. Can an employer fire a publicly-avowed white supremacist? (August)
2. “First world” ethics of the Amtrak Quiet Car (March)
3. Inauguration Week special: “Gaslighting” goes mainstream (January)
4. Work, savings, retirement: Generation Jones is getting hammered (August)
5. “The rules don’t apply to me” (February)

Year’s end contemplations

Holiday lights on the Boston Common

Dear readers, I thought I’d offer this late December posting with several reflections and looks ahead. Wherever this holiday season finds you in location or spirits, I wish for you a good and healthy 2018. And thank you for your readership of this little blog.

Commitment

As the year comes to a close, I am more convinced than ever that preventing, stopping, and responding to all forms of interpersonal abuse is one of the most important objectives we can pursue, individually and as a society. My original base of understanding this assertion has been the world of work, where bullying and mobbing behaviors wreak havoc on psyches, livelihoods, and careers.

This worldview has been enhanced by my association with groups such as Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies and the therapeutic jurisprudence network — the latter soon to publicly debut the new International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Through these groups, scholars, practitioners, activists, and artists are striving to build a world that positively embraces human dignity as a primary good. My friends and colleagues from these communities, as well as others I’ve met along life’s course, have helped me to understand how abuse occurs in so many other settings, including within families, relationships, and institutions of all kinds.

We’ve got our work cut out for us, but is there a better societal goal than the advancement of human dignity?

Writings

Maureen Duffy & David C. Yamada, eds., Workplace Bullying and Mobbing in the United States (ABC-CLIO, 2018) –Publication of our two-volume book set has been slightly pushed back until late January. Featuring over two dozen contributors (including a Foreword by Dr. Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute) and clocking in at some 600 pages, the project deliberately takes a U.S. focus in order to consider the unique aspects of American employment relations. We’ve done our best to deliver a resource useful for scholars and practitioners alike, and we can’t wait to see the published version!

David C. Yamada, “Homecoming at Middle Age,” The Cresset (2017) — In the fall of 2016, I returned to my undergraduate alma mater, Valparaiso University in northwest Indiana, to participate in homecoming activities and to spend a few extra weeks on campus as a visiting scholar, working on the book project above. The extended visit marked the 35th year since my college graduation, and it prompted a flood of collegiate memories and reflections on how events of that time — personal, national, and global — remain relevant today. I gathered some of them in an essay just published in The Cresset, the university’s “review of literature, the arts, and current affairs.”

Coming soon…

The International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence (ISTJ) is a new, non-profit, membership-based learned association devoted to advancing therapeutic jurisprudence, an interdisciplinary school of philosophy and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of laws and public policies, legal and dispute resolution systems, and legal institutions. Our opening event was a founding meeting in July 2017 at the International Congress on Law and Mental Health, held in Prague, Czech Republic. Several dozen people from around the world filled a meeting room to discuss plans for this new organization, and the combined energies created a palpable sense of enthusiasm and engagement.

Since then we have been filing our articles of incorporation and application for tax-exempt charitable status, as well as assembling our website with the ability to accept membership dues and featuring a forum page in which members can post information and commentary. As the initial board chairperson of the ISTJ, I am excited about the possibilities to come for this organization and its founding members.

Bernard Law: A defining legacy of enabling widespread abuse

Here in Boston, holiday celebrations and observations have been harshly interrupted by news of the death of Cardinal Bernard Law, whose long-time leadership of the Archdiocese of Boston was defined by widespread cover-ups of sexual abuse of children committed by priests. As reported by Mark Feeney for the Boston Globe:

Cardinal Bernard F. Law, whose 19-year tenure as head of the Archdiocese of Boston ended in his resignation after it was revealed he had failed to remove sexually abusive priests from the ministry, setting off a scandal that reached around the world, died Tuesday. He was 86.

…The abuse scandal was “the greatest tragedy to befall children — ever” in the Commonwealth, the attorney general’s office said in 2003, and “as archbishop, and therefore chief executive of the archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law bears ultimate responsibility for the tragic treatment of children that occurred during his tenure. But by no means does he bear sole responsibility.”

Not surprisingly, Law’s death has reopened wounds (if they were healed at all) of many of the victims and their families. Especially due to Boston’s large Catholic population, the priest sexual abuse scandal is one of the most tragic and painful events in the city’s history.

On Wednesday, Globe columnist Kevin Cullen pulled no punches in describing Law’s true legacy:

Bernie Law — and that’s what I’ll call him, because he was no more special than you or I — was one of the greatest enablers of sexual abuse in the history of the world.

…And that’s how Bernie Law should be remembered. If only because it will serve as a grievous warning to others who may try to shroud themselves in good works and think their legacy will survive their complicity with nothing short of evil.

…Bernie Law presided over one of the worst networks of sexual abusers ever assembled. Thousands of children were raped and molested on his watch. Some of them killed themselves. Some were dead, in their souls, from the moment they were inappropriately touched by a priest. He sent the priests who raped and molested on to other parishes to do more of what they did, rather than call scandal to his church.

Bernard Law’s critical role in covering up the abuse and protecting both the archdiocese and the child predators on its payroll continues to raise profound moral and ethical questions about the social responsibilities of institutional leaders. By enabling, supporting, and protecting dozens of sexual abusers, with full knowledge of their behaviors, I posit that he was even more culpable than the individual predators. As such, his enormous failings remind us that interpersonal abuse within institutions rarely occurs in a vacuum. It is often made possible by organizational cultures stoked by those at the top.

***

Related post

Lessons from “Spotlight” for combating interpersonal abuse (2017)

Celebrating a community that affirms human dignity

Last week I participated in one of the highlights of the year for me, the annual two-day workshop on transforming humiliation and violent conflict, sponsored by Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies. HumanDHS is a global network of scholars, practitioners, students, artists, and activists committed to the advancement of human dignity and to the ending of humiliating practices. Every December we gather at our host organization, Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York City, and immerse ourselves in highly interactive exchanges amidst a spirit of fellowship.

The workshop is built around the general theme of “Transforming Humiliation and Violent Conflict,” joined by a major sub-theme, this year’s being “The Nature of Dignity and the Dignity of Nature.” Previous sub-themes have included “The Globalization of Dignity” (2016), “Honoring Alfred Nobel’s Message” (2015), and “Work that Dignifies the Lives of All People” (2014). Over the course of two days, upwards of 60-75 people participate in this workshop, including a fair number who travel from outside the U.S.

A defining characteristic of these events is a series of interactive “dignilogues” using these two formats: (1) groupings of short presentations on a wide range of topics by individuals invited to discuss their work, followed by questions and discussion; and, (2) break-out sessions on topics chosen by participants, followed by short presentations to the full conference from each break-out group. Addresses, talks, music, artistic work, awards, and an open public event are also blended into the workshop.

I’ve been sharing my participation in this workshop every year since starting this blog. This gathering is a source of hope, fellowship, insight, and refueling for me. My role with HumanDHS has grown substantially since my original contact with this remarkable group of people. In addition to sitting on the HumanDHS board of directors, I help to facilitate workshop sessions and participate in the dignilogues. And during the last few years, I’ve added my singing pipes to the mix, helping to lead the group in a closing rendition of “What a Wonderful World,” doing my best to channel my inner Louis Armstrong!

To learn more about HumanDHS, check out its fulsome website. It is very heavy in content and not much for graphics — more of an archive than a fancy showpiece! You can also read this piece that I wrote in 2014, “Creating an intellectual framework for human dignity,” which describes the core activities of the network.

My 2017 written testimony in support of the MA Healthy Workplace Bill

As some readers know, I am the author of the template version of the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB), model workplace anti-bullying legislation that provides a civil claim for damages for bullied workers who can show they have been subjected to an abusive work environment and suffered physical and/or psychological harm as a result. The bill also includes liability-reducing incentives for employers who act preventively and responsively toward workplace bullying, mobbing, and abuse.

During the past eight years, we have been steadily building support within the Massachusetts legislature to enact the Healthy Workplace Bill, which has been filed in the current 2017-18 session as Senate No. 1013. Along with other advocates and supporters, I have filed written testimony in support of the HWB. Here is a slightly edited version of what I submitted in March:

***

Written Testimony in Support of Senate No. 1013,

“An Act addressing workplace bullying, mobbing, and harassment, without regard to protected class status”

 

(a/k/a “Healthy Workplace Bill”)

 

David C. Yamada

Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School

Author, Healthy Workplace Bill 

Dear Members of the General Court:

As the author of the original language contained in Senate No. 1013, workplace anti-bullying legislation informally known as the Healthy Workplace Bill, I respectfully submit this testimony to summarize what we know about workplace bullying, the need for legal reform, and key features of the legislation. This is our fourth full session in bringing this bill to the Legislature, and we strongly believe that it should become law.

Workplace Bullying is a Form of Targeted, Interpersonal Abuse

Workplace bullying is the intentional, repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one employee by one or more employees, by verbal and non-verbal means. Individual bullying behaviors come in overt and covert varieties, such as

• false accusations of mistakes and errors;
• yelling, shouting, and screaming;
• exclusion, ostracism and the “silent treatment”;
• withholding resources and information necessary to the job;
• behind-the-back sabotage and defamation;
• use of put-downs, insults, and excessively harsh criticism;
• hostile glares and other intimidating non-verbal behaviors;
• unreasonably heavy work demands designed to ensure failure.

Workplace bullying is not:

• everyday disagreements and “dust ups” in the office;
• someone having a bad day and losing his/her temper;
• reasonable instructions, directives, and employee reviews.

In the United States, workplace bullying is common, often top-down, and typically does not end well for those targeted. A 2014 national public opinion survey sponsored by the Workplace Bullying Institute and conducted by Zogby pollsters found that:

• 7% of respondents are currently experiencing workplace bullying, and another 20% of respondents previously have experienced workplace bullying, using a definition that tracks the language of the Healthy Workplace Bill.
• 56% of bullying is committed by supervisors; 33% by co-workers; 11% by subordinates.
• The most common “resolution” is that the target leaves the job: Quit or forced out (48%); terminated (13%); transferred (13%).

Human and Organizational Costs

Workplace bullying can inflict health-impairing physical and psychological harm on targeted employees, including:

• stress disorders of all types
• clinical depression
• high blood pressure
• cardiovascular disease
• impaired immune systems
• suicidal ideation
• symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
• severe residual effects on family and personal relationships
• life-altering decisions about whether to stay in or leave a job.

Workplace bullying is very costly to employers. Organizations that play host to workplace bullying may suffer a variety of negative effects, including:

• decline in productivity
• reduction in morale
• fear and mistrust permeating the workplace
• greater attrition and “presenteeism” (i.e., workers going through the motions)
• higher health insurance and benefit costs
• elevated risks of workplace violence

The Need for Legal Reform

Current Law Does Not Protect Bullying Targets or Encourage Employer Prevention

• Most instances of severe workplace bullying, especially those unrelated to protected class status (sex, race, disability, etc.) and whistleblower retaliation fall between the cracks of existing employment law.

• Targets of severe workplace bullying are repeatedly told by plaintiffs’ attorneys that they have no legal recourse.
• In the 2014 Workplace Bullying Institute national survey, 63% of respondents “strongly support” and 30% of respondents “somewhat support” workplace bullying laws.

Main Features of Senate No. 1013

• Provides workers with a legal claim for severe bullying behavior, but with a high threshold: They must establish that the behavior was intentionally abusive and caused tangible physical and/or psychological harm.
• Imposes liability on both individual aggressors and employers, but allows employers to minimize liability by preventing and responding to bullying situations.
• Includes provisions that discourage weak or frivolous claims.
• Claims brought in court; no agency involvement.

Debunking Myths about the Healthy Workplace Bill

1. “Existing harassment law is sufficient to protect bullying targets.” — This is untrue. Existing harassment law protects only those individuals who can prove that the harassment is due to their protected class membership, such as sex, race, or age.
2. “Existing tort (personal injury) and workers’ compensation laws are sufficient to protect and compensate bullying targets.” — This is untrue. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that under exclusivity provision of the state’s workers’ compensation law, workers may not sue their employers for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and many other tort actions. Furthermore, workers’ compensation benefits are very difficult to recover for so-called “mental-mental” injuries, i.e., claims for psychological impairment based upon psychological mistreatment or harassment at work.
3. “The HWB will open floodgates of litigation.” — Of course there will be lawsuits under the HWB; it would not be doing its job if workers did not bring claims under it. However, after an initial surge of litigation, the number of claims will moderate considerably once lawyers and the courts recognize the fairly high threshold for recovery. In fact, the HWB has been criticized from sectors of the left as setting too high a standard for recovery. Furthermore, Under the HWB, an employer may avoid liability by showing that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any bullying behaviors and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of these remedial measures. This is practically identical to the liability-reducing incentives contained in current federal law covering sexual harassment.
4. “The language of the Healthy Workplace Bill is too vague.” — Not if you consider the bill in its entirety. The HWB draws its definition of an abusive work environment from the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a hostile work environment for sexual harassment.
5. “The HWB takes away traditional management rights.” — This is untrue. The HWB takes away only the current right to treat someone abusively. It preserves management rights by providing an affirmative defense where the complaint is based on upon (1) an adverse employment action (such as a termination) reasonably made for poor performance, misconduct, or economic necessity; or (2) a reasonable performance evaluation; and (3) where the complaint is based on the employer’s reasonable investigation about potentially illegal or unethical activity.

An Emerging Law Reform Movement on Behalf of Human Dignity at Work

• Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) and related bills in 30 states — Since 2003, the Healthy Workplace Bill and related workplace bullying legislation have been introduced in 30 states.
• Massachusetts – In the 2011-12 and 2015-16 sessions, the HWB advanced to Third Reading in the House; in the 2013-14 session, the HWB advanced to Second Reading.
• Illinois — In March 2010, a version of the HWB covering public employees was approved by the Illinois State Senate by a 35-17 vote.
• New York — In May 2010, the New York State Senate passed the HWB by a 45-16 vote that included strong bipartisan support.
• California – In 2014, California enacted a law requiring larger employers to engage in supervisor training and education concerning workplace bullying.
• Tennessee – In 2014, Tennessee enacted a law directing a state commission to develop a model workplace bullying policy for public employers.
• Other nations — Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, and Sweden are among the growing number of nations that already have enacted laws and regulations covering workplace bullying.

Conclusion

If I can be of any assistance toward understanding the phenomenon of workplace bullying and the underlying legal and policy issues, as well as specific provisions contained in the Healthy Workplace Bill, please contact me.

Ellen Cobb’s “Workplace Bullying and Harassment”: A global legal source guide

For those seeking a handy compilation and summary of laws relating to workplace bullying, mobbing, and harassment around the world, Ellen Pinkos Cobb’s Workplace Bullying and Harassment: New Developments in International Law (Routledge, 2017) may be your go-to source. The following is drawn from the book’s online description:

Workplace Bullying and Harassment: New Developments in International Law provides a comprehensive tour around the globe, summarizing relevant legislation and key developments in workplace bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination, violence, and stress in over 50 countries in Europe, the Asia Pacific region, the Americas region, and the Middle East and Africa.

. . . This book brings together need-to-know information on global workplace bullying and harassment in one place, the first publication of its kind to do so. It will aid those in the fields of labor and employment, human resources management, occupational and industrial health psychology, health and safety, and workplace regulatory compliance stay abreast of laws and developments that these practitioners must be aware of, whether operating nationally or globally. Academics will also benefit. Links to laws and references are provided, enabling further research.

Ellen is a Massachusetts attorney who has been steadily researching laws related to bullying at work, and I’ve had the pleasure of knowing her for many years. She first published this guide independently. After producing several self-published versions, she then secured a contract with a major publisher. I’m delighted that her very useful and comprehensive resource is now more broadly available, and at a relatively affordable price for a book designed for practitioners and scholars.