Peace at Work

In so many of my presentations, I get a semi-serious answer that to prevent workplace violence, shoot them first.  When someone comes charging in the door, guns a blazing, de-escalation training or a policy or even a panic button will not help. Only physically stopping them will save your life.  That is right. Not much else will help.   

But when this is promoted as a central or sole prevention measure, it may actually be feeding the mentality that justifies violence.  I am not saying that gun rights advocates are murders or one of these serial killers. I respect the desire to defend yourself and your family. But there is this enthusiasm, this almost excited anticipation of someone giving them an excuse to shoot first. 

The question is when is right to shoot someone? When they are shooting at you or someone else? If they are just talking about it?  The most common response is for self-defense. But how that is defined and what is being defended is skewed by those who justify these rampages. What if your pride, ego and identified are endangered by the loss of a job, status, a lover or public image?  What if your rights were being infringed upon; would you kill someone who may be limiting your rights to bear arms?   

It may be that I exaggerating this perspective; most who want to protect themselves will only do so when absolutely necessary.  But it is this emphasis or almost fascination with guns and their power that underscores the threat of violence in the first place.  

Let me tell you something that shows you what I talking about and what happened to me earlier this summer.  While providing a workplace violence training and reviewing the organization’s policy on no firearms at work, I met with some heated resistance.  I explained that this is standard for most employers, private, government and non-profits across the country, but still met with an aggressive response as if I was taking their guns out of their hip holsters.  I showed them studies and offered case examples of how guns at work would be a bad idea. Perhaps I should have left the matter alone after just explaining the policy.

One person was particularly bitter and vindictive.  After the class, I picked up the remaining handouts to find a portrait- visually expressing his thoughts on my presentation and the policy. 

Welcome to my first post on this blog.

I read two interesting articles about how people want learn self defense for the dangers that they face at work.  That makes sense. I once asked a real estate if I could come to one of their association meetings to talk about protection. I outlined a presentation that focused on call in procedures, qualifying prospective clients and “in the field” safety tips. She wanted to know if we could practice take downs, strikes and what’s the best kind of pepper spray.  After all, that is what will stop an assault when it threatens you.

And so do most social workers who are so often the recipients of the violence from the clients that they are trying to serve. About 265 out of the 400 social workers surveyed said that they thought that physical defense training was needed to lower the estimated 50,000 assaults that occur every year. There is no doubt that those that helped the most needy in our communities also bear the brunt of that frustration.

But is “self-defense”, the ability to fight back, to hurt them so that they can’t hurt you, how much of that is the source of the violence in the first place?

There are other drawbacks of martial art or defensive grappling lessons in a false sense of security, embolden some and may even encourage others. At the worst, it may be the option explored and developed, taking emphasis away from other prevention measures that would have a more comprehensive coverage. If someone is attacking you, your options are reduced to fighting back, fleeing or being victimized.  But training, conducted once a year with participants of varying physical condition may not be retained and untilzed when it is needed.  Investing in procedures that include background and records checks on clients and locations provide information that may warrant workers being paired.

Oh, I know, so then two people will be killed.  I really think that having two people present has a much better chance of reducing the likelihood of an assault than one lone staff member armed with a few moves that they will try to remember in a moment of panic.  

Or worse. They are capable and execute the maneuvers with a little too much enthusiasm.  Now we have a client coming back to the admin office with a neck brace and an attorney.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that being physically able is good prevention. I just think that it needs to be practiced regularly and used willingly.

One lesson learned is to stop thinking what one individual can do in a situation but look at systems, habits and environment create the opportunity to stop violence.

If you want -join the comment slog. 

But it is not just the human services industry at risk –

“ A British Retail Consortium survey reported that physical violence against retail staff rose 50% in one year, adding that the number of threats of violence increased by one-third in 2007.”

 It seems that taking a child away from a negligent parent bears similar risk to refusing to accept a return of DVD. In all fairness, retail and other service orientated industries such as restaurants, do face a very real threat from robbery, Type I workplace violence. But again, these encounters are often the most deadly with weapons present in the majority of them.

This leads to a solution that is so commonly suggested in workshops.  To reduce it down to the simplest terms, shoot them first.  As the current issue of guns in the cars of employees who park in company lots is discussed, many advocate for arming well intended and “normal” people to defend themselves.   There has even been legislation suggested and some that have passed that supports arming teaching and even students on campuses. I just don’t think that the solution can even be based on just having more guns present.

But what about the assaults? What about the employee who faces an assault alone and far from their office, in an isolated location?  We need to stop that.   But the fear, anger and shock may lead us to simplistic thinking.  Stopping it just as it is occurring and not looking at the broader picture in preventing violence from arising in the first place. 

But the worst part is how familiar it sounds. Maybe that gut reaction of striking back is the same demon that justifies an assault in the eyes of the assailant.