Speaking truth to power at work: Incivility & abrasiveness vs. bullying & mobbing

Image courtesy of Clipart Panda

As I’ve shared with you before, dear readers, I sometimes use this blog to develop ideas-in-progress. This means engaging in some thinking out loud, so to speak. Back in 2015, I wrote about distinguishing workplace incivility and abrasiveness from bullying and mobbing (link here):

Readers from outside of academe may be amused to learn that research on bad workplace behaviors has broken down into several camps. Two of these are the incivility researchers and the bullying researchers. At organizational psychology conferences, it’s not unusual to hear remarks such as “oh, she’s an incivility person” or “no, he’s more into bullying.”

When I started this work over 15 years ago, I treated these behaviors as parts of a spectrum, with many overlaps present, but it’s clear that sharper lines are being drawn, at least for the purposes of putting together panel discussions and writing dissertations.

For me, the most significant line is where behaviors become abusive, motivated in significant part by a desire to cause distress or harm. When that line is crossed, it’s not about incivility or bad manners; we’re now into the territory of bullying or mobbing.

I went on to add that although incivility and bullying have both been receiving greater attention, the former has still gained greater acceptance among employee relations stakeholders and the mainstream media:

Over the years, both incivility and bullying have attracted greater attention from employee relations stakeholders and the popular media. However, we’re still at a point where workplace incivility, rudeness, and abrasiveness are more readily acknowledged than bullying and mobbing. I have many ideas as to why this is the case, and they tend to circle around the nature of power. Those in charge are much more threatened by allegations of bullying than by claims of incivility.

I greatly value the growing body of research and commentary on workplace incivility. After all, the more we understand incivility at work and how to prevent and respond to it, the better. However, I think that for some organizations, it’s safer to use the incivility label than to acknowledge the more abusive realities of bullying.

Along these lines, I’d like to gather my thoughts about why many organizations and other employee relations stakeholders are reluctant to recognize workplace bullying and mobbing:

  1. Bullying and mobbing involve abuses of power, not bad manners. Especially because these abuses are often top-down in nature (i.e., managers and supervisors directing abuse toward subordinates), acknowledging bullying and mobbing points a steady finger at the values, ethics, and practices of senior management.
  2. On an individual level, it’s one thing to say that a boss “doesn’t play well in the sandbox with others,” “is a little rough around the edges,” or “can be a jerk at times.” Such characterizations can be tagged as merely uncivil, not abusive, and thus don’t carry a heavy stigma. However, to recognize that a boss (or any other individual, for that matter) is abusive is very different thing.
  3. The abusive nature of bullying and mobbing also implicates the psychological makeup of leaders and organizational cultures. This means opening the door to characterizing individuals and organizations as possibly having qualities consistent with narcissism, sociopathy, and/or psychopathy.
  4. In the U.S. especially, where the rule of at-will employment (which includes the right to terminate a worker without cause) and its underlying theoretical legal framework of master-servant relationships still hold sway, accusations of work abuse directed at bosses and managers are extremely threatening to the power structure.
  5. Practically speaking, under at-will employment, a subordinate who bullies a boss can be fired without cause, while a boss who bullies a subordinate usually doesn’t have to worry about job security — unless the bullying is discriminatory in nature (race, sex, etc.) or in retaliation for legally-protected whistleblowing.
  6. Preserving this top-down power relationship is, no doubt, among the reasons why some employers and their trade associations oppose the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. Even if they have no intentions of treating workers abusively, they want to retain the right to do so, without fear of being held legally accountable.

Related posts

“Master and servant”: The roots of American employment law (2013)

At-will employment and the legality of workplace bullying: A brutal combo punch (2011)

On following evil orders at work

In a piece for Medium (link here), Sarah Griffiths interviews psychological researcher Julia Shaw (University College London) on her new book Evil: The Science Behind Humanity’s Dark Side (2019). Here’s what Dr. Shaw says about the negative implications of our tendency to follow orders:

Following orders is the default human tendency, so if there’s someone in authority, or someone who has authority over you, then you are likely to follow their orders, unless you are in danger. That’s for a host of social reasons, not the least of which is that we are generally trusting of our fellow humans and if we’ve placed them in a position of responsibility — a political office, for example — then we trust the decisions they are making are not going to break social norms or moral values.

It’s also a lot of work to stand up against authority and think for ourselves in a situation when we feel we don’t have to, so we quite readily outsource immorality as our brains are effectively a bit lazy and are constantly trying to conserve resources.

Among other things, these dynamics can lead us to take part in cruel and abusive behaviors. History is riddled with examples of this, including participation in torture and genocides.

In response, Shaw suggests three things that we can do to avoid engaging in mistreatment of others, at the behest of someone in authority:

There are three things you can do. The first is to learn about things and prepare yourself when times are good for when times are bad.

…The second thing you can do is “foster heroic imagination,” … (s)o you can picture yourself swimming against the tide of “evil” and going out of your way to do good things for other people — playing the hero.

…The third thing is to make sure that when you are in a situation requiring morally challenging decisions, that you deliberately fight the urge to give in and go with the flow.

At work

Naturally I’m translating this into workplace settings: What if an employee is directed or enlisted to take part in the bullying, mobbing, or harassment of a co-worker? How should that individual respond? What are the costs and consequences of resisting versus going along?

Certainly we can all grow as individuals and develop stronger moral and ethical groundings in terms of how we respond to directives to do wrongful things to others. In that sense, it seems that the three things suggested by Dr. Shaw require a lot of foundational work on ourselves, well before the precipitating events arise. Those events will test us, and decisions on how to respond will emanate from our core foundations.

That said, I am only mildly optimistic about our collective ability to respond to work abuse in the individualized manner suggested by Shaw. Typically these forms of interpersonal mistreatment are enabled or endorsed by organizational leaders. Our tendency to take our cues from the top — the very tendency centrally acknowledged by Shaw — creates shared presumptions that succeeding on the job means accepting, or at least not resisting, the accompanying values and behaviors. By contrast, someone “playing the hero” in the face of wrongful behaviors is often left to do so on their own, with all the accompanying risks.

Rather, the solutions are more systemic. We need a stronger, more inclusive labor movement to provide a countervailing voice for everyday workers. We need laws against workplace bullying. We need stronger enforcement of existing workplace protections. Ultimately, we need to embrace dignity as the primary framing value for our society, joined with a commitment that dignity should not be sacrificed for the right to earn a living and pursue a vocation.

True, advocating for these changes often requires speaking truth to power, but at least if we do so more collectively, our chances of success are much greater than going it alone.

Talking about workplace bullying and disability at the Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium

Dr. Jacobus tenBroek (www.nfb.org)

Last week I had the privilege of discussing workplace bullying and disability at the Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium, an annual conference sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) in Baltimore, Maryland. Based on the feedback I received, I believe that my presentation offered a useful contribution to the conference. (More on that below.) In addition, for me personally, the biggest gift of the conference was being able to experience it and learn from other participants.

Perspective-changing

I’ve been to dozens of academic and professional conferences during my career, but this was my first attendance at a larger event where people living with various disabilities — in this case, especially those with visual impairments — formed such a significant share of fellow participants. One might claim that I was long overdue in this regard, and I would strongly agree. It is a perspective-changing thing to spend an extended period of time in such a setting, to be in a very different kind of normalcy. Many of the lawyers, advocates, and scholars are living with disabilities that happen to be among the focal points of their work. Substantively, this diverse mix positively influenced the quality, depth, and authenticity of exchanges on topics that are sometimes understood and treated superficially. 

Conferences, symposia, and workshops have their own cultures or vibes. Some are friendly, while others are stuffy. Some help to foster a sense of community and inclusion, while others feature preening and posturing. The tenBroek event is a community builder, where people hatch ideas, teach and mentor one another, and renew friendships and acquaintances. It’s not as if everything is all hearts-and-flowers consensus. Among other things, there were earnest discussions about the need for more racial diversity among speakers and attendees. Nevertheless, the tenBroek symposium serves as an important annual gathering spot for folks interested in legal and policy issues concerning disabilities of all types.

Workplace bullying and disability

The session on bullying, harassment, and the civil rights of persons with disabilities was the final panel of the conference, and I happened to be the last speaker on it. This gave me an opportunity to explain the basics of what we know about bullying and mobbing at work, then go into why existing employment protections have proven inadequate to provide relief to so many abused workers. I then discussed the Healthy Workplace Bill and why it’s needed.

Although we have long understood that work abuse can cause mental disabilities or exacerbate current ones, we know a lot less about the experiences of those with physical disabilities and workplace bullying. During my remarks, I said that we would benefit greatly by learning more about that.

I also put in plugs for two organizations whose overall missions are very consistent with the work being done by folks at the conference, the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence (link here) and Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (link here), both of which I’ve mentioned frequently on this blog. (In fact, it was my connection with Prof. Michael Perlin, a mental health law expert who is active in both of these communities and serves on the NFB board, that led to my invitation.)

About Jacobus tenBroek

I also learned a little bit about Dr. Jacobus tenBroek , the NFB’s founder and a remarkable individual. The NFB’s Lou Ann Blake, in a 2006 biographical profile about tenBroek (link here), wrote the following:

Most Federationists know that Dr. Jacobus tenBroek founded the National Federation of the Blind in 1940. However, today in 2006, thirty-eight years after his death from cancer on March 27, 1968, the majority of Federationists may not be aware that Dr. tenBroek was also a constitutional law scholar, a civil rights activist, a leader in the reform of social welfare, and a distinguished national and international humanitarian. From his days as a law student until his death, Dr. tenBroek produced thousands of written documents, including letters, speeches, law review articles, and books.

Wow, what a powerhouse. No wonder his spirit helps to drive this conference.

***

If you’re on Facebook, please “like” my new Page for this blog and the New Workplace Institute, where I’m adding content and hosting conversations that don’t appear here. Go here to sign up.

Healthy Workplace Bill: Forty-five percent of the Massachusetts legislature supports workplace anti-bullying legislation

The Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB), which permits targets of severe workplace bullying to seek damages in court and creates liability-reducing incentives for employers to act preventively and responsively towards bullying behaviors at work, is gaining considerable momentum in the new session of the Massachusetts legislature. As of Friday, February 1, lead sponsor Senator Paul Feeney has been joined by 90 legislative co-sponsors in supporting the bill — representing some 45 percent of the Massachusetts legislature.

This is one of the strongest showings of legislative support for comprehensive workplace anti-bullying legislation at the bill-filing stage in the young history of the national advocacy campaign on behalf of the HWB.

As readers familiar with legislative processes know, the process of enacting new legislation — especially on cutting-edge subjects — is often a long slog requiring patience and commitment. This is our fifth full session of bringing the HWB to the Massachusetts legislature. We’ve continued to build support for the HWB during every session, and that work is paying off. The current list of co-sponsors far exceeds the previous record of 58 for the 2015-16 session.

***

For years, the lead sponsor of the HWB was Rep. Ellen Story, and her steadfast work brought us a long way. Since Rep. Story’s retirement, our new lead sponsor, Sen. Feeney, has stepped in to give the HWB his fullest commitment. Like Rep. Story, Sen. Feeney and his staff have worked closely with our advocates to build support for the bill.

On the advocacy front, special shout-outs go to two co-coordinators of this campaign: Deb Falzoi, whose invaluable efforts in leading our advocacy group and social media outreach have fueled the growing momentum behind the bill; and Greg Sorozan, whose vital work as a union leader through SEIU/NAGE (a major public employee union in Massachusetts) has given us critically useful insider assistance in advocating for the HWB in the legislature.

And at its core, this grassroots legislative campaign is about the thousands of individuals who are calling, e-mailing, and visiting their legislators to urge their support of the HWB. Many have shared personal stories of experiencing workplace abuse. A lot of folks are bravely stepping up to make a difference.

This work is far from finished. When it comes to legislative advocacy, there are no guarantees. That said, having 91 legislative supporters of the HWB in Massachusetts is a major step forward. We have gone from being a novelty, to a presence, and now to a genuine force. 

***

The Massachusetts HWB currently carries the docket number 1355. The permanent bill number for the 2019-20 session will be assigned later. For more information about the Massachusetts advocacy campaign for the HWB, see its website (here) or Facebook page (here).

***

As some readers may know, the seeds of the HWB were planted in a law review article that I authored (published in 2000 by the Georgetown Law Journal), in which I surveyed the serious inadequacies of existing employment protections for targets of workplace bullying and suggested the parameters of needed new legal protections. I drafted the original version of the HWB in 2002, and in 2003, it was filed for the first time in the California legislature — championed by Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie of the pioneering Workplace Bullying Institute.

When I embarked on this work some 20 years ago, I had no idea of where it might lead. But thanks to the efforts of countless individuals, we are now creating growing legislative recognition that the harm wrought by workplace bullying, mobbing, and abuse should be subject to legal consequences. At this point, it’s about building public support for legal measures to fill the huge gaps that leave workers so vulnerable to these forms of interpersonal mistreatment.

***

Here is the current list of supporters. Because the State Senate has a later deadline for co-sponsoring bills, it is very possible that we’ll be adding additional names.

Name District/Address
Paul R. Feeney Bristol and Norfolk
Ruth B. Balser 12th Middlesex
Jack Patrick Lewis 7th Middlesex
Diana DiZoglio First Essex
Steven Ultrino 33rd Middlesex
Lindsay N. Sabadosa 1st Hampshire
Maria Duaime Robinson 6th Middlesex
Denise Provost 27th Middlesex
Rebecca L. Rausch Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex
Daniel M. Donahue 16th Worcester
Carmine Lawrence Gentile 13th Middlesex
Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr. 12th Hampden
Carolyn C. Dykema 8th Middlesex
Patrick M. O’Connor Plymouth and Norfolk
James T. Welch Hampden
Aaron Vega 5th Hampden
David Allen Robertson 19th Middlesex
Natalie M. Higgins 4th Worcester
James J. O’Day 14th Worcester
Joanne M. Comerford Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester
Louis L. Kafka 8th Norfolk
Tommy Vitolo 15th Norfolk
Tram T. Nguyen 18th Essex
Carole A. Fiola 6th Bristol
Mike Connolly 26th Middlesex
Adrian C. Madaro 1st Suffolk
Thomas M. Stanley 9th Middlesex
James B. Eldridge Middlesex and Worcester
Anne M. Gobi Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire and Middlesex
Kevin G. Honan 17th Suffolk
Patrick Joseph Kearney 4th Plymouth
Daniel J. Hunt 13th Suffolk
Bruce E. Tarr First Essex and Middlesex
Kate Hogan 3rd Middlesex
Marjorie C. Decker 25th Middlesex
Michael J. Rodrigues First Bristol and Plymouth
Edward F. Coppinger 10th Suffolk
Bud L. Williams 11th Hampden
Bruce J. Ayers 1st Norfolk
Elizabeth A. Malia 11th Suffolk
John J. Mahoney 13th Worcester
Paul McMurtry 11th Norfolk
John J. Lawn, Jr. 10th Middlesex
David M. Rogers 24th Middlesex
Danielle W. Gregoire 4th Middlesex
Todd M. Smola 1st Hampden
John C. Velis 4th Hampden
Tami L. Gouveia 14th Middlesex
Jay D. Livingstone 8th Suffolk
Lori A. Ehrlich 8th Essex
Sal N. DiDomenico Middlesex and Suffolk
RoseLee Vincent 16th Suffolk
Tackey Chan 2nd Norfolk
Daniel R. Carey 2nd Hampshire
Alan Silvia 7th Bristol
David Henry Argosky LeBoeuf 17th Worcester
Paul W. Mark 2nd Berkshire
Russell E. Holmes 6th Suffolk
Jonathan D. Zlotnik 2nd Worcester
Antonio F. D. Cabral 13th Bristol
Andres X. Vargas 3rd Essex
Christina A. Minicucci 14th Essex
Ann-Margaret Ferrante 5th Essex
Michael O. Moore Second Worcester
Sean Garballey 23rd Middlesex
Jonathan Hecht 29th Middlesex
James M. Kelcourse 1st Essex
Mathew J. Muratore 1st Plymouth
Liz Miranda 5th Suffolk
Jerald A. Parisella 6th Essex
Elizabeth A. Poirier 14th Bristol
Donald F. Humason, Jr. Second Hampden and Hampshire
Joseph A. Boncore First Suffolk and Middlesex
Julian Cyr Cape and Islands
Michael F. Rush Norfolk and Suffolk
Susannah M. Whipps 2nd Franklin
Jon Santiago 9th Suffolk
Carlos González 10th Hampden
Brian M. Ashe 2nd Hampden
Paul F. Tucker 7th Essex
James Arciero 2nd Middlesex
Stephan Hay 3rd Worcester
Daniel R. Cullinane 12th Suffolk
David T. Vieira 3rd Barnstable
Jeffrey N. Roy 10th Norfolk
Chynah Tyler 7th Suffolk
Michelle L. Ciccolo 15th Middlesex
Kay Khan 11th Middlesex
James K. Hawkins 2nd Bristol
Mindy Domb 3rd Hampshire
Natalie M. Blais 1st Franklin

In the news 2018

Periodically I’m contacted by reporters about topics discussed on this blog. Here’s a fairly complete list of 2018 news stories in which I’ve been interviewed or where my work has been discussed:

Skipping Bible study? Ordering a deli platter? You may be violating company rules

Prepping for my WeWork interview

Periodically the media treats us to stories that illustrate the power of employers to control workers’ lives in ways that may have little to do with the actual product or service they are providing. This summer I spotted a couple of stories that fall into this category.

Thou shalt not skip Bible study

NPR’s Sasha Ingber reports on an Oregon construction company worker, Ryan Coleman, who filed a religious discrimination lawsuit after being fired for no longer attending Christian Bible study sessions, as required by his employer, Dahled Up Construction:

According to the complaint, he was hired as a painter in October 2017 and discovered on the job that he was required to attend Christian Bible study as part of his employment.

Coleman, who is half-Native American (Cherokee and Blackfoot), wasn’t comfortable with those terms, his attorney, Corinne Schram, told NPR. “He says his church is a sweat lodge, his bible is a drum, and that’s his form of worship to the creator,” Schram said.

According to the document, Coleman expressed his discomfort with attending the Bible study meetings and said the requirement was illegal, but business owner Joel Dahl insisted that he go anyway.

. . . After several months, Coleman finally refused to go to the religious sessions and was fired from the job, according to the filing.

Of sprouts and spinach leaves

WeWork is a company that rents co-working space to entrepreneurs and start-up business ventures. It has grown by leaps and bounds in cities where office real estate is expensive. As David Gelles reports for the New York Times, it also now limits company food and catering orders to vegetarian selections only:

WeWork is no longer a safe space for carnivores.

Earlier this month, the co-working juggernaut announced that it was essentially going vegetarian. The company will no longer serve red meat, pork or poultry at company functions, and it will not reimburse employees who want to order a hamburger during a lunch meeting.

In a memo to employees announcing the new policy, Miguel McKelvey, WeWork’s co-founder and chief culture officer, said the decision was driven largely by concerns for the environment, and, to a lesser extent, animal welfare.

Legal restrictions and management practices

Generally speaking, private sector employers enjoy wide leeway in setting company hiring and work policies, so long as they do not violate discrimination laws and similar protections.

The Bible study requirement directly implicates an employee’s right to be free of religious discrimination by an employer. The vegetarian food order requirement, however, does not appear to run afoul of any employment laws.

Legal distinctions aside, I think there’s a strong case for removing the company mandates in both situations. I respect that a business owner may want to create a company that embraces certain values. However, I also think that we need to give workers room to be themselves in their everyday choices.

It’s about getting the balance right.

On being restlessly patient in advancing positive law and policy reforms

A piece in the current issue of the Economist, the venerable British news magazine, resurrects the tax policy positions of Henry George, an author and political economist who built a worldwide following during the last half of the 19th century:

ON A trip to New York in the late 1860s the journalist Henry George was puzzled. He found the rapidly growing city to be a place of unimaginable wealth. Yet it also contained deeper poverty than the less-developed West Coast. How could this be? George had an epiphany. Too much of the wealth of New York was being extracted by landowners, who did nothing to contribute to the development of the city, but could extract its riches via rents. The problem could be solved by a tax on land values.

George’s subsequent masterpiece, “Progress and Poverty”, sold more copies in America in the 1890s than any other book except the Bible. It spawned campaigns for land-value taxation around the world. It also inspired a board game, “The Landlord’s Game”, a precursor to “Monopoly”. The game was designed to show how property markets naturally tend towards monopolies in which one player can extract all the rent.

Examining the current state of tax policy, the Economist concludes that a stronger reliance on land taxation might be a good thing.

I’ve been interested in George’s land tax proposal ever since reading about it in Robert L. Heilbroner’s The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers back in college. (Heilbroner has passed, but his book — last revised in 1999 — remains, in my opinion, the most engaging, lucid, and accessible introduction to the history of economic thought.) As the Economist piece suggests, Henry George’s ideas would fade into obscurity. They have been kept alive by a small but determined band of economists and social activists, coalescing around a group of independent Henry George Schools dedicated to providing continuing education and scholarship about Georgist economic principles.

But the purpose of this writeup isn’t to convince you, dear readers, on the merits of Henry George’s taxation theories, even though I believe they are worth considering. Rather, it’s to point out that important ideas about law reform and public policy sometimes take years to percolate, in some cases beyond our lifespans.

With that reality in mind, I have favored an attitude of restless patience in advocating for desired changes in law and public policy. In this context I think of restless as being dissatisfied with the status quo. I think of patience as being smart, persistent, and determined. I have had to give myself this advice on at least three areas of law and policy reform very dear to me:

Workplace bullying and law reform

Some 20 years ago, my first law review article on the legal and public policy implications of workplace bullying was accepted for publication, and it would be published by the Georgetown Law Journal in 2000. Among other things, it surveyed potential legal protections for targets of workplace bullying under American employment law and found them wholly wanting. I proposed the parameters of what would become a model workplace anti-bullying statute, eventually dubbed the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB).

For some 15 years, the HWB has been the main template for law reform efforts concerning workplace bullying, but it has not yet been enacted in its full form by any of the 30 states in which it has been introduced. However, in recent years we have had some breakthroughs, with several states and municipalities enacting workplace bullying legislation and ordinances drawing heavily from the language of the HWB. Unions and government entities are also using the HWB language to collectively bargain over workplace bullying concerns and to design internal agency employment policies.

Here in Massachusetts, we continue to work hard to make our state the first one to enact comprehensive workplace anti-bullying legislation. The HWB once again stalled in the just-completed session of the MA legislature, despite dozens of legislative sponsors and a positive report out of the committee overseeing it.

Advocacy work can be frustrating and sometimes demoralizing. But if you believe deeply in something, you keep going. Maybe you change strategies or tactics, but you persevere. And come January, when the 2019-20 session of the legislature begins, we’ll be ready to go.

Like an unwanted holiday fruitcake

In 2002, the Connecticut Law Review published my article on the legal status of interns, in which I looked at the burgeoning intern economy and concluded that many unpaid internships are running afoul of minimum wage laws. I hoped that the piece would quickly stir some interest, but for many years it pretty much sat there, like an unwanted holiday fruitcake.

This changed when a writer named Ross Perlin authored the first comprehensive examination of the explosive growth of unpaid internships, Intern Nation (2011). He referenced my 2002 law review article and called it “the single best source of information for American internships and the law.” (Thank you again, Ross, for pulling my article out of depths of Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis.) One of Ross’s readers, Eric Glatt, chased down my law review article and concluded that his unpaid internship with Fox Searchlight Pictures just might’ve been in violation of minimum wage laws. Eric would become the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit seeking compensation for that internship.

To our disappointment, federal courts have not been friendly to these claims brought by unpaid interns, adopting a very pro-employer legal test for exempting interns from the minimum wage. However, the door has not been completely closed on such legal claims, and the considerable publicity generated by these cases has caused many employers to opt to pay their interns. The debate over unpaid internships, once a non-existent one, continues to reverberate in business and legislative settings.

Should law be therapeutic?

In recent years I’ve allied myself with a much broader effort to change our laws and public policies, an interdisciplinary field of philosophy and practice called therapeutic jurisprudence. “TJ,” as it is commonly referred to, examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of laws, legal systems, and legal institutions. It favors outcomes in legal disputes and transactions that advance human dignity and psychological well-being.

TJ was founded in 1987 by two American law professors, David Wexler and Bruce Winick. Although it has grown into a global network of scholars, lawyers, judges, and other practitioners, it has yet to enjoy a mainstream presence in legal academe or legal practice. To help expand TJ’s influence, we have formed a new non-profit, membership organization, the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence. I am serving as the ISTJ’s first board chair.

I hope that someday, sooner than later, TJ will be recognized as a primary framing theory for the design and application of the law. In the meantime, I find myself inspired by that cohort of scholars, educators, and activists who have kept the flame of Henry George’s ideas alive for so many years.

On being restlessly patient

Indeed, I’d like to think that the spirit of Henry George is pleased to see his ideas about land taxation knocking on the door of greater mainstream reception. Of course, in my case I’d rather not wait for some 130 years to see workplace bullying laws widely enacted, interns being paid for their work, and our laws and public policies embracing human dignity and psychological well-being. But at least it’s a reminder that good ideas can’t be suppressed forever.

As I find myself urging upon those who are understandably frustrated with the pace of social progress and justice, we cannot control outcomes, we can only try to influence them. This is an especially important reality for the times in which we live. Buoyed by a spirit of restless patience, our job is to dig in, plant the seeds for positive change, and take part in moving our society toward something better.

***

You may freely download my law review articles on workplace bullying, intern rights, and therapeutic jurisprudence from my Social Science Research Network page. At the risk of being immodest, I have been told by many folks who are not lawyers or academics that they are very readable and accessible, which I consider to be a supreme compliment.

%d bloggers like this: