Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Edgewater Tragedy

0 helpful
52 replies

by john connell

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

In the wake of the tragic Edgewater Technology shooting outside of Boston, I am wondering if people are talking about office safety or security issues. Has your organization addressed the matter in any way? Have your colleagues voiced concerns aboutthe potential for violence in the workplace? Unfortunately, we are often forced to react rather than act when it comes to these kinds of horrible events.
What, if anything, could Edgewater have done to prevent the tragedy? Does your organization have any standards, policies, or other measures to protect employees from potential violence?

52 replies

by packratt

Honestly, there is no way to assure that this will not happen where you work unless the root cause of these events are studied and something is done about the cause, not the symptoms.

I doubt that this will occur despite this horrible tragedy andit cost in human life. We look at all of our wonderfull technological advances and the tremendous strides that we have made for the economy but we, as a society, continue to ignore the base of our social structure. Philosophy, ethics, politics, and all social sciences have been largely ignored with no meaningfull changes or advances in over a hundred years.

Our society is crumbling from it's base upwards and we only have ourselves to blame.

What could we have done to prevent this tragedy or prevent it from happening again elsewhere. Well, we could employ things like tough security at every building, street corner, etc... While demanding extensive psychological profiles from all employees and refusing to allow those with even minor diversions from the "norm" to earn a living. We could put many patchwork quick fixes in place but that will never prevent another such thing from happening again I'm sorry to say.

We have to look to the root of the problem and solve it there to assure ourselves that we can be safe. Just like your network, patches are somewhat effective but fixing the problem at the root is the best solution.

My deepest sympathies go to the families and friends of those who were lost and my thoughts are with them.

by packratt

I've been reading articles lately about the rising stress levels in the workplace where people work in cubicles, work sweatshop hours for the company profits, and are tied to their desks at home with new technologies. Many studies and surveys have been done to show that anger and stress levels are on the rise and that it's leading to workplace problems that didn't exsist 10 to 15 years ago.

Anger is in the workplace and it's there to stay. Executives and employees have to learn to live with this fact unless they are willing to change the way they look at employment, which is unlikely to happen.

Now, I will admit that I get angry at work, I think everyone does. I also believe that it is important to realize that the anger exsists and not to deny it's power. Anger is a natural emotion and it is a powerfull one, those people that state that they never get angry at work frighten me more than anyone else.

See, I know how to deal with anger and redirect that anger to positive outlets. Many people I know don't, so they either internalize their anger which changes it to depression, or they let it build up by denying that anger of it's power. Like I said, it's that later that scares me, when people do this they become time bombs.These people must be given safe outlets to release this emotion or the results can be disasterous as we have seen. So we must educate people about anger and how to deal with it, we must help them deal with it when they have to as well and do so in constructive and safe ways that they can use without fear of losing one's livlyhood.

So employers must acknowledge that there is the potential for this to happen and they must either make strides to change the way they deal with employees or acceptthat they are pushing them to the limit and look for ways to help them deal with the results. This will be the only way to stop situations like this from happening in the future.

by nels

Packratt is absolutely right. Our nation has become a quick-fix-it-and-move on type of nation. And unless it effects us personally, we ignore it and consider it someone elses problem. We ignore immoral or illegal deeds and acts of "supposed" leaders. If our leaders are wayward, then what about the rest of us.

We have left behind the social ethos and morals that are essential.

We must get back to the "roots" to fix the problems. Maybe people just need to plain old, "Give a S#*t".

Keep the victims in your hearts and minds.

by dave_whelbourn

Until US grasps the nettle of banning weapons I suspect these things will always happen.

The UK did just this after a couple of terrible massacres(first banned automatic rifles and then handguns) and it seems to have worked. We still have murdersand shootings but they are mostly confined to the criminal element fighting over "turf".

I think the US has to recognise there is no place in the modern society for people walking around with firearms and infringing the rights of the vast majority of it's citizens.

by cybersekkin

Banning weapons is not the solution. If you attention the weapon used was already an illegal weapon.. If a few of the workers had legal weapons with them a lot fewer people would have died during this tragedy.. The real solution is to hold people like this responsible for their actions rather than letting them skate off with a temporary insanity plea.

by mrathbun

see here now ...... the solution is not to infringe my rights because less than one percent of the gun owners turn out to be mentaly unstable ...... if you take away guns wacko's will just use knives, swords, there car, clubs ..... irresponsible owners should be delt with swiftly and surely .... not by penalizing the rest of us ..... if gun owners were allowed to take there guns more places .... ie work this man would have at least thought twice before starting to massacre his accounting dept or would not have gotten past the first victum ... it is a known here in the US criminals are less likely to break in to a house, rob someone on the street if they think they might be armed ...... 1/2 doz of the employees here own guns and i am not afraid of any of them coming in here killing anyone

by packratt

While I must admit that banning the weapons that people use to harm each other is an appealing solution we have to go back to the root cause again. Simply, there are too many weapons to ban and new ones are invented each day. As I understand it the UK still has a massive problem with violence even if that violence has been reduced to melee weapons at the moment.

We humans are so good at inventing but so horrible at controlling our inventions and ourselves. I think it's unrealistic to stop the process of creativity we have but we have to take some time to examine how we interact and deal with others and ourselves before things get too far out of hand.

I think that we have to examine better ways to either rehabilitate those who refuse to accept society or think of better ways to remove them from society since they refuse to abide by social responsibilities. We should also work towards better ways of examining the cause of these behaviours and ways to avoid them and help other avoid them.

I admit that it's a pretty tall order, but banning implements of destruction is just a patch that is highly suspect, not a solution. I wish it were that simple though!

by wm_gardner

I dare you, put it up in your front yard and see if you can sleep at night. If we ban gun's thats what your doing. My sign say's "I OWN GUNS". I can sleep. I love the second amendment.

by Member 21361443

First off, let me state that proactive measures need to be taken to ensure workplace violence doesn't occur. My opinion is that the workplace (and management) needs to realize that "employed" is not the same as "indentured servitude". Unhappy people cause this type of problem, not happy ones.

Now, to address the anti-weapons statements: Weapons are not the root of the evil, it is people that are at the root. It wouldn't matter if guns had never existed. There would be bow and arrows, slings and stones, staffs and swords. Removing the usage of weapons from the people is the first step to tyranny.

In the US, we believe in individual freedoms. The only way to protect individual freedom is to allow the individual the ability to protect themselves. If the government is the only entity entrusted with weapons, then the government becomes a very effective tyranny.

One item I thought very interesting is the fact that in cities where a concealed weapons permit is relatively simple and easy to obtain, violent crime drops drastically. In cities where the gun laws and concealed weapons laws make it nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain a gun and a permit, violent crime increases.

Criminals will still get their hands on the weapons when they want them. Therefore, they want it harder for the average person to get a gun. Criminals certainly don't want to face an armed "victim", since unarmed people are easier to attack than armed ones. Don't take the weapons out of my hand that I use to protect myself and my family from them.

Brian Lusk

by new graduate

of another human being. There are exceptions (i.e a verbal threat) that can tip you off to someone's intentions, but in a nutshell, no company can reasonably predict something like this.

I have to agree with bungalow bill. I shoulder the responsibility of protecting myself.

And to address the idea of banning guns...that would work in an ideal world. However, let me draw an analogy. Narcotics are "banned." Since they are against the law, have we eliminated the drug problem? Do drugs still exist in our society? My point is, guns would not just go away. As a matter of fact, law abiding citizens would be unarmed and at the complete mercy of illegal-gun-toting criminals...I can't even imagine such a society. Maybe our forefathers were onto something with the second ammendment?

The key is education with respect to firearms and enforcing the current gun laws.

by packratt

There is no way to predict violent behaviour that is 100% reliable. Some people are very good at holding their emotions in and you will never know until it happens that the person was ready to blow up.

However, we can try to communicate more often with our coworkers and try to gain some understanding of their situations. By taking an interest and making efforts to acknowledge that they are human and taking the time to know them better we can be in a better position to protect ourselves from violent outbursts by preventing them.

I take the time to talk with the people I work with, to talk with the people who report to me. By doing so and keeping the lines open they feel free to come to me with personal issues, to rant to me about worksituations beyond their control, to release. We all feel better by doing so and it gives me insight as to when they should take some time off or maybe seek some help to deal with their emotions or situations outside of work.

By being there to listen and understand without giving judgement I can help prevent the situation happening to one of my peers. That beats bringing a gun to work with me.

Yes, it sounds sappy, but the people I work with have less stress because of it and so do I. If that's any measure then being sappy works and can help predict and head off violent outbursts.

by parttimetech

It seems that the price of new technologies and "productivity" is a toll on our very souls.

If you are working in a shop where anyone with a brain is not stressed to the max, one way or another, send me your email address and I'll send you a resume.

No psychos here, yet. But there is no safety net to deal with The Potentials. I am the only one in the office with the ability to remain in tune, given the level of stress.

Gee Whiz These Nails Hurt,
Jesus

PS: A co-worker explained to me today that the Edgewater culprit "looked like a psycho", so it was the employers that are at fault. I don't look like a psycho. Do you?

by andy jackson

Workplace violence is a growing concern
among workers but has little legal
implications for the employer.

Recently my workplace was subjected to
a hot tempered coworker with a large
physical presence and a very short fuse.
This individual was very defensive and
confrontational. The whole office lived in
fear of his explosive anger. Several
individuals refused to work with him and
some left for other employment.

The concern about him going "Postal" as
his work and private problems mounted
was a whispered concern among the
staff. Everyone lived in fear and
intimidation.

The employer was reluctant to remove
this guy from the workplace because his
knowledge and contributions were critical
to business.

Researching our options we discovered
that there is very LITTLE legal protection
for workers in our situation.

There is Federal protection against
sexual harrasement or discrimination
against race, sex, or physical disability.
There is Federal protection from OSHA
regarding a safe workplace (ie. safe from
Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical, or
Sound exposure). There are even the
recent guidelines regarding computer
ergonomics. But, nothing to prevent a
coworker from intimidating or killing
others (other than existing State and
Federal laws regarding assault or
murder).

Enough is enough. How many times will
assaults and killings need to occur
before employers can be held libel for
allowing this kind of environment to exist?

For sexual harrasement, the rule of
thumb is "if someone feels
uncomfortable, then it could be
harrasement". At that point, the employer
is obligated to investigate and take action.

Why not do thesame for violence?

by john connell

Sure, employers should do something to protect employees from violence in the workplace like you suggest. But, how can they actually prepare for outbreaks like this one? The man in Edgewater, although considered by coworkers to be "an eccentric loner" (CNN.com), took everyone by surprise with the outbreak. Those who knew the man are in disbelief.

We certainly cannot forecast madness and violent outbreaks based on someone's appearance. I do not agree that there is a particular look that qualifies someone as "psycho." If there are signs that suggest an employee as unstable or capable of causing harm then I would think that employers should investigate accordingly. But, the Edgewater incident was a complete surprise to everyone. Do we prescribe psychological evaluation for employees so that we can keep track of what's going on in people's heads?

by leasure suit larry

Asking someone else to protect me from someones else's violent acts never did me any good, Our modern police dept. are nothing more then report takers. They show up after the fact and not to blame them they don't have a crytal ball to tip them off to the next crazy. But if technology and law enforcement can't protect me. Then let me do it myself. At least i know it will get done.

by arg cio

If someone feels anything other than happiness, for longer than a week (unusual circumstances not included), then they need HELP! If you don't feel any happiness within one weeks time, STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP!STOP! STOP! damnit STOP! Take a breathe, go to the park, a movie, ANYTHING to bring some happiness(within reason)! Don't go all out, quit your job, divorce your spouse, and do the "American Beauty" thing, but do SOMETHING fun! FIND A FRIEND, MAKE FRIENDS with someone, do something you like (besides kill everyone you hate!) Lord knows I have thought about finding a way to kill everyone I hate, but then I thought.. poop, what if everyone killed every person they hate? I'd be dead, because I have made some enemies. I don't like it, but I have. I tried to make things right, but mostly it was too late, and I was young and foolish(I'm still young, but not as foolish). I don't believe any of these people are going to kill me, but I know one who wanted to. I got lucky that he hasn't really had the chance, but I have taken precautions to protect myself, and my family against some things, but I still want to have fun, so I throw (some)caution to the wind and do it. PEOPLE: HAVE FUN!! IT IS JUST YOUR LIFE, DON'T LET OTHERS RUIN IT FOR YOU! DON'T WORK YOURSELF TO THE BONE, WITHOUT SOME REWARD(either from employer, or self given) DON'T DWELL ON YOUR ERRORS, LEARN AND MOVE ON!! DON'T DWELL ON OTHERS ERRORS, HELP THEM LEARN, AND MOVE ON!!

by derwood

I agree with your points about how can you know what is going on in somebody's head. But doesn't the phrase "considered by coworkers to be an eccentric loner" strike alarm in anybody's mind? Is this person a loner by choice? Or has he been shunned? Is his eccentricity a way of acting out his discontent with his social situation? Or is it a desperate attempt to seek the attention he so desperately needs?
Wouldn't you feel more comfortable working with somebody that shared some kind of common bond with you? Or had some kind of connection with you? Maybe employers and coworkers need to be more proactive in dealing with people who do not seem to "connect" with others. I am not blaming, just saying that your best guarantee of safety is a person who feels connected to you.

by andy jackson

Psychological evaluations are a normal
part of employment. Traditionally they are
used to determine if an individual has
skills to handle such things as multiple
tasking, cognitive thinking, and are
honest. Employees are subjected to
substance abuse testing prior to
employment.

All of these tests are for the employers
benefit. How about testing for employee
protection.

The tests exist to determine if there is a
predisposition to violence or a tendency
to blame others.

Yes, give the tests or place heavy liability
on employers that refuse to test if there is
an act of violence.

by david.engelstad

Where I work, a zero-tolerance directive was recently issued against violence in the workplace. Any one who threatens a co-worker or in any other way creates a hostile environment is fired. Period. And about two months after that directive went intoeffect we had a very real demonstration of it when a mentally disabled person who threatened a coworker was summarily fired.

I disagree that there is no incentive to the company to remove threatening people. Can you say "liability"? If my employer knows that someone is dangerous (split that legal hair all you want, some lawyer can make a claim like that stick) and does nothing about it, they might be held liable. That means cash-money and that makes companies pay attention.

-david

by hingram

We are sitting ducks for the most part. If someone gets in the building with a gun or a bomb, there is little or no protection. I never encountered a company that offered any protection against such actions. I did work in a building that housed a bank which men there was someone armed in the building. That's the closest I came to being protected.

by packratt

Isn't it interesting that even when there are guards who are employed by a company that they are there to protect the company and it's property, not the people?

We have guards where I work, while they do check for ID badges when people come in, they will not stop anyone from signing in and walking right through without verification. They don't blink when someone carries in a bag either. They will, however, stop you dead in your tracks if you try to take anything OUT of the building.

The police are structure in a similar manner. They are not there to protect, like you are led to believe... They are there to seek vengence, and they only protect through indirect threats which, as we now know, do not work so well.

The only real protection that we will find is through education and support... Yet I'm sure that does not sound realistic to most here and it doesn't seem to be possible to me either.

Good luck out there.

by d. brinson

I think that the outcry about workplace violence is somewhat out of perspective. I do not mean to state that I approve of workplace violence, I do not. One life lost to senseless violence is one life too many. However, if you really want to talk about risks, a person is far more likely to die in a car wreck driving to work than at the hands of a co-worker gone postal.

by derwood

Firstly, my heartfelt sorrow and condolences to the victims and their families, friends, and co-workers.

Here are my thoughts:

-you can not legislate the problem away
-you can not "Fort Knox" the problem away
-you can not study the "Book of Psychos" to learn what they all look like, and I do not feel that is a valid analysis of the individual anyway

The real solution lies in addressing the problems, not the symptoms of the problems.
When people act out, it is a direct result of an absolute and total failure to cope with stress, frustration, feelings of no self worth, etc. We need to address employees as people, not cattle. Different people have different needs, some people require little "maintenance" others are more needy. We need to accept that people are different and have different needs and address it in a non-judgemental manner and in a supportive, not condescending way. I think we are all psychos, when pushed to our extreme limits. People all differ in how much theycan cope with, that's all.

I work for a large corporation, where I feel supported by my superiors and my co-workers. I feel like part of a community, and I am probably the most eccentric one on the team.

My questions:

-do we alienate peoplewho are "different"?
-do we include everybody in our corporate community regardless of how different they are?
-do we talk to people who are not outspoken or unusually introverted?
-do we allow people to become singled-out loners who are excludedfrom social activities and feel no common bond with the people they work with?

Once again, my utmost respects and kind regards to the people who have suffered through this, including the family of the subject in question. They must be suffering equally. We, as a society bear some responsibility for events of this nature.

by dcal

I doubt there is one answer that will satisfy the concerns of the employeses and to protect the employers from being vulnerable to a workplace attack such as this recent one. In my former life, I was a Security Manager for the largest security compnay in the USA. Depending on the region, the security staff was not armed. Those that were, could not use their sidearms to prevent or deter a shooting, they could only use them if fired upon. Besides, Security is usually found in the lobby of a building, which is most likely not the target environment of an attacker.

How do you reduce the risk of "unstable" persons from working with your company? Paper work!!!!!!! Background checks, Security checks, Psychological tests etc. etc. etc. With the amount of data available to employers today, there is a way to weed out some of the "unstable" people seeking employment with your company. Is this 100% effective, No...but what is? I dare say that you can pick out the people who will snap,most of the time it is some one who you least expect.

Recommendation, have a security professional audit your work place. Have them find the "cracks" in your building. Ask them if someone can sneak in firearms through points of egress. Can people sneak or bring in firearms to their respective work areas with them. One thing I found in the security business is that 9 times out of 10, employers will not spend the money on Security until it's too late. It's better to have the security and not need it, than NOT have security and need it after a tragedy.

by david.engelstad

You're partly right. Banning weapons in the US won't work because we have a gun-obsessed society, thanks in equal measure to the NRA and Hollywood. Way too many people believe the fallacy that having a gun makes them safe.

However, "if a few of the workers had leagal weapons with them" we would have had many more dead people. How many people can aim straight under the best of circumstances, let alone under fire from someone intent on killing them?

Finally,I don't think that the assuranceof punishment (even death) is the absolute solution. Most of these nuts die in a shoot out anyway. They usually expect to die at the scene. I'm pretty sure they don't care about any punishment while they are murdering people.

-david

by fshort

My sister was shot and killed by a 14-year-old with a .22 in Florida. This led me to examine my (and society's) beliefs and attitudes towards guns. I realized that even though I was robbed at gunpoint as a kid, I don't need a gun to live in Texas (or anywhere else) in the US.

The self defense idea is fine except that most people will miss in a firefight - remember the video of two cops and two crooks blazing away at each other one van-length apart - with no hits?

Samuel Colt and Hollywood have marketed guns very well to their benefit and our loss.

So, I decided to boycott movies with excessive violence, tell people about my experiences, and join the Million Mom March.

These are small steps indeed, but I feel
better and perhaps others will change their atitudes also.

by hakan berg

I don't think this is something Edgwater can do too much about. I think the biggest problem is that weapons are too easily available. When I heard the news on the car-radio on my way to my job here in Sweden, I tried to imagine a similar situation at my current job, and at all other jobs i've had, but it all seems so unreal that I could not do that. Why not? Well, first of all, we do not have weapons that easily avaible. Of course, people use knifes and fists, but mostly such situations merely resolve into embarrasing quarrels. (Knifes are, by the way, also illegal to carry in an official place.) When a person feels threatened and unsecure, maybe has no clue how to act out that bad feelings arisen from an injustice felt, it is essential what means are available to do that. If a person can't control himself that's bad, but if society lets him have lethal weapons, well I mean that also that society has part of the responsibility, not only to the obvious victims, but also to the guy who did it. In a sense I beleive that he too, is a victim in a case like this, even if I would say that he should never had doen what he did. He must absolutely be punished, but he's still a victim. By the way, I just can't imagine how horrible this mustbe to the surviving colleagues. It's too much for me to grasp.

by hakan berg

Even if people had leagal weapons, they too would not react responsible in a situation like this. If I had a 'legal' weapon I would still react from my feelings in such a situation. There is only one solution to this: forbid the weapons! In my pointof view there are no 'legal' weapons, because all wepons are made to kill, and a person is not a court, judge and jury authorized to judge and kill a person in one short moment.

by cybersekkin

Banning weapons is not a solution. Look at Japan and other countries that have banned guns. People hold entire bus loads of people with a knife. Also these people do not usually die during the terror incident (if they do how do you explain all the court casses they are currently in all over the country) In other countries violent behaviour is spreading to younger and younger generations, to the point where elementary school kids are hacking each other up(Kobe Japan-banning guns really helped there again huh?) Weapons are not the culprit and all citizens should have the right to protect themselves--face it your company is not there to protect you, but to make profits and the police are there to pick up the mess not prevent it from happening.

by backinthesaddle

Shall we outlaw baseball bats and kitchen knives too? I enjoy recreational shooting and plinking and hold a concealed carry permit which I consider a huge responsibility. However, I ahve never and would never shoot someone over such a situation, butif this guy had come into my office pointing a shotgun,or handgun at me I would blow his poor troubled ass away and live another day.

by wlolli

I have a concealed carry permit. I am trained in how to use a weapon in situations where deadly force is an option.
It is a fact that in states where concealed carry laws are allowed, violent crime significantly declines. Gun-culture or not, Hollywood or not, the fact is: if you are a victim you have a right to defend yourself.
33 states agree that you do. The other states do not agree (like Mass.) and place the average citizen at risk.

by thomas

What we learn as being right or wrong detrmines how we react to a given situation. Why this individual mounted such a violent reaction to his wages being garnished by the IRS needs to be examined further. At the most basic level, his existance was being threatened. An animal without the sense of morality that humans have would react to such a threat by either attacking the threat or defending itself. This instinctive behavior is also present in human beings. However, our ability to reason is supposed to give us the ability to overide these urges. Our best gaurantee of safety to one another is a strong sense of morality on the part of each person. The traditional sources of this morality have been the family and the church. Unfortunately, during the last 30 years or so both the family & religion have been under attack, which has diminished their influnce in our lives. This problem cannot be cured by more gun control laws or gun bans. We are now reaping the harvest of 30 years of declining morality.

by hakan berg

A quick question: Would you be mentally stable in a situation where your colleagues and friends are beeing murderen in front of your eyes? (answering mrathbun@compucel.com)

by tomjones

A few years ago a female co-worker was being stalked by her ex-husband. He came into our workplace with a pistol. Our gun-toting secratary saw it, confronted him, and blew his brains all over the lobby.

One more life saved by firearms.

by sterling

As President of a small high-tech company, the Edgewater tragedy is very disturbing, and, like all reasonable people I would like to express sympathy for the victims and their families.

I've got to determine what I can do at my company to reduce the chances of something like this happening here. This discussion has been helpful in suggesting some approaches.

I can't change society; I can't eliminate guns from the world; and I don't have any way of predicting if some outwardly calm individual will go ballistic. I can't ban 'loners' or 'guys who look like psychos' without risking unwarrented discrimination against innocent individuals.

What I can do and have decided to put in place here is the following:

1. Let top management take all the tough cases. Any bad news or tough decisions will be relayed to the affected individuals by a member of our management committee -- not by the accounting staff. There is no need for people in support jobs to take the heat for these kind of decisions -- they belong only at top management's door.

2. Establish a specific policy of intolerance for violent activities or theats of violence and deal immediately with any possible violations of the policy. Included in the policy will be a ban on bringing guns or other weapons into the workplace.

Any other specific suggestions for workable policies that can be put in place would be welcomed.

by packratt

First, I must say that I admire you for acknowledging that there is potential for a problem and for stepping up to the problem as a member of society and looking for ways to prevent tragedy from happening on your doorstep.

As to your first choiceI would say that if you intend to do this then you might also wish to have your management staff or committee members undergo some stress management courses or some other crisis managment training to allow them to see potential problems when delivering bad or stressfull news and how to diffuse potentially bad situations.

You might want to rethink or modify your second policy. As I said, people get angry, that's natural. If you were to implement such a policy without a way out for employees to vent their anger in non-destructive ways then you might make things worse. Such a policy would force people to watch what they say and hold in hostile feelings that could put them over the edge.

By saying this I do not condone allowing people towalk around threatening or insulting people without some detriment to such behaviour, but there should be a manditory anger management class and leave period for those who commit a first offence. Also, it might be a good idea to offer other outlets like a free anger management course, a punching bag in a workout room, and open door policy that allows for polite critisism from employees without reprisals.

There are so many things that might help but we'll never know for sure until we can lookat what causes combine to cause these tragedies. I do applaud you for following your concience and trying to find a better way for your employees. If you are the ony person to do something in response to the tragedy then this senseless occurance hadat least one positive result.

by feymary

My previous career path involved providing legal advice and help to a clientele many of whom had extreme psychiatric disorders which made it difficult for them to function on a day to day basis. A percentage of these were known to become extremely violent and had spent time in prison or forensic psychiatric facitilities - One job we got about a death threat a week and our 'sister office' was bombed with 2 people killed.

Perhaps the most important thing you can do is treat all people with dignity and respect.
Acknowledge we are all human. Many of the people I worked with had snapped after a number of appallingly bad things happened in their lives. Things I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy and I don't know how I would have coped if they'd happened to me.The thing that caused them to snap was often minor - someone saying the wrong thing on the wrong day etc.

Setting boundaries is also extremely important. Establishing what is and what is not appropriate behaviour helps everybody - But its really important that management also abide by these standards. Its also important to have some sort of employee counselling available - a loyal and valued employee who is fired for one transgression of the rules will have the rest of the staff worrying about giving feedback etc. If the transgressions out of character - wiser to offer assistance and deal with the problem before it escalates. The guy you sack today for an outburst may break into your house next week looking to support his family cos he's broke.

In ten years dealing with often very scary people we never had an armed guard. no one took guns to work either. A paranoid person who knows that they are going to a place with guns may well think to take one themselves for protection. It worked for us - no one was even injured although some of the verbal abuse was huge.
Part 2 to follow

by hakan berg

Well, you are right here. I must give you that one even if I've propagated against guns in this discussion. I do not trust the police to help me for one second. And I have reason for that. So you are right in that sence. Still, here in Sweden, in a similar situation, if a guy can't take it anymore, and he really freeks out, the only weapon I'm likely to meet is his fist. And that has happened a few times. I'm glad we are not allowed to carry wepons, because if we were, I would not have met their fist. And I would not be able answer this...

by mattbrowna1

Just what did you do to make you co-workers angry enough to punch you? It takes a lot to make someone that angry.

by hakan berg

I never made a co-worker that angry. Such situations where violence was involved I only experienced in other types of situations. And I never did anything that I thought was provocative. Sometimes people just attac for no reason, and then I'm glad they had no weapons.

by andy jackson

In response to what did you do to make
coworkers angry...

You never know what it takes and what
the hot button is until it is too late.

I have seen something as simple as
challenging a design issue or detailing
errors and omissions in a review session
put some folks over.

Some folks have a need to manage their
image so strong that any technical issues
are taken personally. Their whole image
and self worth is caught up in their job.
You critique their design and you are
slamming them.

by pjpatiky

John - The words "act or react" are excellent. But in common work day places who is going to do, and who can do psychological profiles on current or potential employees? That is, down to "...are you going to shoot anybody". This leads to the risk ofinvasion of privacy. If an employee is suspected of being a future shooter that employee cannot be terminted for future acts not committed.

And who is going to frisk employees, every work period, for weapons. Again, more risk of being sued.

And too often in the technical skills it is the person with the extreme personal life that is the better tech analysist.

A prevention, and even I call it not fool proof, is to have Managers down to First Line Supervisors, measure out their employees. When an employee becomes suspect, then approach that employee, courtesly and request cooperation with psychological evaluation.

But it must be emphisized that no matter how well based the evaluation, FBI or whatever, it is impossible to to determine who is going to shoot anyone in the work place.

by packratt

I do respect your opinion and effort to give us perspective.

Yet, what if one of those lost were a memeber here? What if one of the people lost posted here at one time? What if this didn't happen and one of the people who will never be among us again would have been a friend, a coworker, a relative? We will never know what these people and any other who has died before their time might have become, what they might have given us if the worse didn't happen.

It's my perspective that we, as asociety, are less that what we were when we loose a member of our society. It is a loss to all when such things occur and it is our responsiblity to do what we can to make sure it does not happen again.

by mattbrowna1

A big part of the problem with workplace violence is that many workplaces are just to stressful. For example, the mere fact that there is such an expression as "going postal" proves that there are serious problems at the post office.
In workplaces with a hostile environment, where a pink slip could be right around the corner for anyone, workers will suffer mental breakdowns. When climbing the corporate ladder means kissing the posteriors of superiors, kicking those of underlings, and stabbing the backs of those equal, violence will happen. When CEOs and executive make 400% of what common workers do, and give themselves bonuses for the creative solution of laying off workers, tensions will rise.
We don't need more gun control, or pre-employment screenings. We need a kinder, fairer, and less stressful office environment.

by sclayton

Every now and then some deranged idiot wants to draw attention to himself. Bryant at Port Arthur in Tasmania shot 32 people with an AK47 some years ago. I visited this spot being a tourist destination last year. It was with some trepidation knowingwhat had happended there, however once there, no significant additional security measures had been implemented. Just a monument to those who had lost their lives. Had there been security officers or police everywhere it would have spoilt the tranquility of the place. Likewise at Edgewater, because some maniac has lost the plot killing innocent people, it would be a shame if the government reacted legislating for every business to compensate in providing measures to protect its workforce against this sought of action. If a person is going to run amok then they will do so anywhere where there are people be it work mates or public.
Focus should be on the cause of mental stress and training staff to recognise mental instability in the workplace!

SC

by emcs

My company does have policies in place to protect their employees. But these policies are only as good as they are enforced. It is up to everyone to look out for problems that may come. Safety & protection cannot be put on the company only. We all have to look at for each other.

dennie

by lwt

Hi! I am a "mentally deranged" individual. I suffer from a chronic psychiatric condition and resent to being called a "nut" or "psycho". Put yourself in someone like my shoes. How would you like:

1. Being subjected to parental and familial abuse (physical and emotional, possibly sexual) and constant rejection while growing up?

2. Being subjected to harrassment and persecution all throughout your school years for being "different"?

3. Having people throw rocks at you or call you degrading names just because you look "different"?

4. Having people call you "stupid" or "retarded" because your brain did not process information the way "normal" people's minds do?

5. Being treated all your life like your opinions did not count, your feelings were meant to be trampled on, and YOU JUST DID NOT MATTER?

6. Being given the double-standard of treatment just because you did not have any friends, and therefore just didn't "exist"?

7. End up hospitalized, institutionalized, or overdrugged when maybe some simple "milk of human kindness" would have prevented a lot of future problems?

Maybe it is asking too much of "normal" people to learn to apply the Golden Rule to everyone they come into contact with. Of course, it is much easier just to dispense with civility and consideration and just step on everyone who is "deficient" or "odd" in order to realize the American dream and live in one's own little oasis while a lot of people out there have nothing but their own personal little hells...

And you wonder why things like this happen...

by feymary

You make your point clearly - If we try and treat everyone with dignity and courtesy then everyone wins - a point I forgot to make in my previous post was that evryone has pointed the finger towards people identified as having psychiatric conditions- Fact is that while people can exhibit sometimes different behaviour that makes it easy to point the finger and makes people like yourself the subject of the kind of abuse you have metioned.. people suffering these conditions are far more likely toself-harm or be hurt by others than hurt other people. Even though the research shows time and time again that you are more likely to be killed by the person you love or have loved (up to 80% of women murdered - 20% men) (with men it tends to be stupid fights with their mates that get out of hand)newspapers and the media in general don't run these stories cos they are not sensational enough. You are far more likely to be murdered or maimed by a close friend or lover ...

Hope you all have a good new year.

Cheers Mary

by feymary

I don't own a gun and would not work where employees carried them to work for 'protection'. Very few people are properly trained to deal with crisis situations involving guns - mostly people freeze or shoot someone else or themselves by accident.
While 'tests' and screening can weed out the obvious candidates, they are of limited use as many mass killers were just normal guys who snapped and you can't predict that. Having said that, you can do a lot to minimize employees reaching the level of angst where they consider a gun as the only way out. Regular 2 - way feedback session with your staff will help to identify those who may be under some stress - employee assistance programmes, greivance procedures and generally encouraging an atmosphere where people keep an eye out for each other will also help.

If you have programmes in place monitor their effectiveness. Its no good promising help or assistance or solutions to workplace problems if you don't follow through - this creates and even more negative environment and people will feel worse as they have bared their feelings to no avail. Conduct exit interviews with all employees leaving and make sure they know its ok to tell all. make it informal, and ensure no repercussions for the person leaving. You can learn a lot.

I think the most bizzare TV interview I have seen was a follow up on a school massacre - a number of kids who were interviewed all said the kids who did the shooting were wierd, we teased them, we ostracised them - we hated them etc. The reporter came back on and said 'we still have no idea why this tragedy happened'.

Simple - they got treated like crap every day at high school and decided they couldn't take anymore - their revenge was the most extreme form and there were obviously other problems - but chances are it might have been prevented if someone had stepped in to stop the bullying etc.

Cheers Mary

by pjpatiky

For the information of the TR Board:
Michael Mcdermod Martinez, who legally changed his name to Michael Morgan McDermott, the shooter, was in the Navy's Submrine service. There he was given the battery of phsychologicl tests that all submariners take to measure the ability to handle the long, very long close quarters living and lack of common human contact. He passed these tests, which many average Navy men could not.
However, with his test passing, he did show signs of quick mood swings while in the Navy. Verbally and lightly-physically quickly attacking fellow crewmen, but just as quickly apologizing.
McDermott's parents were average types with above average income. School teachers.
McDermott's first, major overt act of extremeism appears to have been the shooting.
STORY CREDITED TO THE BOSTOM GLOBE.

by packratt

There are no simple answers... There are no simple or cheap patches that we can use to "fix" this.

Nobody is "normal", the tests may find some who are suseptable to stress but will discriminate against those who may never snap and will not prevent the "normal" guy from snapping.

Bringing guns to the workplace just begs for some very nasty situations to arise, this could turn the normal boss tirade into a massacre.

Added security will never work if someone is really intent on doing harm, look at the bombings terrorists do, no ammount of security stops that.

Zero tollerance policies against violence or threats are a start but will not solve this issue either and may make it worse when those under stress have no outlet when near the edge.

So, what does this come down to?

Well, like I said, we have to look for the root cause, what series of events made people snap? What could have been done to spot the signs or what could have been done to avoid the stress? Could we all learn something about how we treat others and how that has a lasting affect on society in unforseen ways?

So many questions, so few answers really. Why? Because we as a people never take time to look down deep and really examine the real issues that are involved. We just look for the quick way out, the cheap answers, and accept that they will not be effective while saying, "it doesn't affect me"...

I know I've been harping in here, I don't appologize. Someone has to be a social concience and say "hey, something is wrong here!". Well something is wrong here, and I will keep harping to make it right. I will do what I can as an individual and a responsible member of society to make it right.

Maybe all we need to do is treat each otherwith respect, understanding, and compassion. Perhaps when you try that you'll find that it is in your best interest to do so as well.

by b. gillespie

We are frail when dealing with others and knowing ourselves.

If we implement punishing restrictions in the workplace, where is the outlet for angst?

I know that everyday I come to work and spend 8+ hours with people I know. I make an effort toget along.

We all do, yet we are frail.

As we share our lives and experiences with one another, we offer support and wisdom. Yet there are those who because of illness or malice will do us harm. These events can't always be forseen or controlled.

Be very careful about asking for more restrictions. Someday you, yourself, may be deemed unfit to participate in society.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

This discussion is closed to new replies.