What do a technical college in Minnesota, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in Washington, DC and the Church of England in the UK have in common? Nothing, one would imagine. That is not strictly true. All three entities have been in the news over the last month and the word linking them all is bullying.
In the case of the first mentioned organisation, Hennepin Technical College, its president resigned on Monday last in the wake of sustained pressure from employees and state lawmakers. Reports had been made against him alleging bullying and workplace sexual harassment. Among the claims were that he made sexually derogatory comments, mocked and belittled employees with disabilities, asked inappropriate questions, made jokes about employees’ personal lives, and talked disparagingly behind their backs about their weight, smell, appearance and physical abilities.
With regard to the second organisation, CNN reported on February 19 that several current and former employees had sued the MPD citing “a hostile working environment”. The four lawsuits, filed between September 2021 and last month, involve 20 plaintiffs and the complaints include racial and sexual discrimination, intimidation, misconduct, inappropriate behaviour, bullying and harassment, among other claims.
In the third instance, a priest’s op-ed in the Guardian, published on Sunday last, championed the Church of England Clergy Advocates (CECA), a union, and explained its necessity. A member of CECA, he confessed that he had experienced workplace bullying, and noted several other situations where priests, especially junior members of the clergy, needed representation. One might want to question claims of bullying in the church, where the tenets include love, faith, charity, forgiveness and suchlike. Lest we forget, many religions are based on control. Undoubtedly, too, workplace bullying is not endemic to the Anglican Church, though that appears to be the only faith-based organisation brave enough to risk speaking publicly about it at this point.
According to the American Psychological Association, bullying is “a form of aggressive behaviour in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions. The bullied individual typically has trouble defending him or herself and does nothing to ‘cause’ the bullying.” One should also note that for bullying to take place there is usually an actual or perceived (by both parties) imbalance of power.
It should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, that children, women, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled face the brunt of bullying in almost every society. It is not a new phenomenon either. The emergence of workplace bullying as an epidemic over the last decade or so is due to the advances in technology which allow the bullied and witnesses to record offensive behaviour. Physical evidence, as opposed to someone’s word against another’s, makes all the difference in human resources investigations and court cases.
The effects of workplace bullying on employees are usually immediately visible. They can experience mental and emotional stress, which tends to lead to absenteeism. This can spiral into loss of pay depending on the terms of employment and circle back to stress and anxiety, when they are unable to meet their financial obligations. The consequences on the workplace include low productivity as a result of high absenteeism, low morale among employees, a high turnover rate and/or attrition and damage to the company’s reputation. Where redress is available there can also be lawsuits and compensation claims.
In many instances, labourers and minimum-wage earners are among the categories of workers who are not even aware that recompense is available to them. Some employers contrive to keep it that way by not furnishing this information and denying access to unions that would educate and advocate for their employees.
Universally, private households employing maids, nannies and gardeners are among the worst offenders in terms of bullying and harassment. In Guyana, they are perhaps topped only by guard services and in some instances, shops/stores. It is typical for security guards in this country, many of whom are women, to work 12-hour shifts; to not be allowed lunch breaks; to be placed at locations where there is no access to toilet facilities; to not be paid for sick days; and to be verbally abused or spoken to inappropriately by their supervisors, bosses, contractors or the general public. Sexual harassment is also par for the course. Shop clerks also face some of these same difficulties.
The last two years should have revealed to us all the value of these frontline workers. Unfortunately, it seems, some are slow on the uptake. Ideally, employers should be mandated to investigate, mediate and counter any instances of workplace bullying. Furthermore, they should be required to show evidence that they have provided anti-workplace bullying training for managers and health and safety representatives, and that preventive measures exist in workplaces, including but not limited to, visible posters spelling out workers’ rights, responsibilities and access to redress. None of these are difficult to accomplish and they might prevent abuse or at least make a potential bully think twice.
