Podcast Excerpt: Navigating the Impact of New Legislation on Workplace Violence Prevention Policies

EHST: With many organizations already having policies against workplace violence, how does the introduction of this new legislation impact those existing policies?

MD: In our extensive experience over the past 15 years in crafting workplace violence prevention strategies, training programs, and offering consultancy for critical workplace incidents, we’ve observed a common misunderstanding among companies. Many believe they have comprehensive workplace violence policies, but in reality, they possess merely a reactive plan for violent incidents or active shooter situations.

Podcast Highlight: Evolving Beyond Traditional Security Measures

This misunderstanding blurs the distinction between a proactive workplace violence prevention plan, as mandated by California, and a mere reactive plan or active assailant response. This confusion is widespread, yet even organizations with robust policies, programs, or training in place will find themselves needing to revise these to align with the comprehensive requirements of Bill 553. Surprisingly, many companies, regardless of their size or sophistication, often summarize their stance on workplace violence in a single sentence within their employee handbook.

Related Insight: Enhancing Safety and Innovation with VR in Manufacturing

The necessity for early intervention to prevent potential escalations of violence is frequently overlooked. Compliance with Bill 553 demands a written plan that includes active employee participation, hazard identification and correction, adequate record-keeping, specific training requirements, emergency response procedures, and regular updates to the plan.

Podcast Update: Insights from the Operations Leadership Summit

This approach requires a proactive, dynamic strategy that continuously evolves to address new challenges, including assigning responsibilities for maintaining the plan. Despite some companies believing their current plans are sufficient, they likely fall short of meeting the comprehensive compliance requirements of Bill 553.

EHST: This raises the question of whether employers fully grasp the scope of workplace violence, which extends beyond extreme cases like active shooter scenarios to include harassment and intimidation, all of which precede actual violence.

MD: Indeed, there are misconceptions about what constitutes workplace violence. It’s commonly assumed that incidents like physical altercations or overt threats, including sexual harassment, will be reported. However, the misconception that workplace violence only involves conflicts between coworkers is widespread.

Podcast Discussion: The Latest Developments in Workplace Safety

Under the California OSHA law, workplace violence is categorized into four types:

1. Criminal intent, involving individuals with no legitimate reason to be on the premises committing crimes.
2. Violence directed at employees by customers, clients, visitors, or vendors.
3. Worker-on-worker violence, including acts by current or former employees, supervisors, or managers.
4. Violence stemming from personal relationships, highlighting the alarming statistic that 40% of women killed in the workplace are victims of an intimate partner, emphasizing the expanded and mandated categorization of potential perpetrators.

In a recent podcast discussion, EHST inquired about the impact of a new bill on existing workplace violence policies. MD, an expert with 15 years of experience in developing workplace violence prevention policies, programs, training, and consulting, highlighted a common misunderstanding among companies. Many organizations believe they have workplace violence policies in place, but in reality, they possess only a plan to respond to incidents of workplace violence or active assailant situations. This confusion between a prevention plan, as mandated by California, and a response plan is widespread.

MD emphasized that even organizations with comprehensive policies might need to revise them to comply with the extensive requirements of Bill 553. Surprisingly, many companies, regardless of their size, often have only a brief statement in their employee handbook declaring that workplace violence will not be tolerated. This overlooks the necessity for early intervention and fails to address the full spectrum of potential issues.

Bill 553 mandates a comprehensive approach, including a written plan, active employee involvement, hazard identification and correction, proper safety measures (like adequate lighting in potentially hazardous areas), record-keeping, specific training requirements, emergency response procedures, and ongoing updates to the plan. This proactive and dynamic approach ensures the policy remains relevant and effective.

EHST raised a point about the general misunderstanding of the scope of workplace violence, which extends beyond active shooter scenarios to include harassment, intimidation, and other precursors to violence. MD agreed, dispelling myths that workplace violence is limited to physical altercations or overt threats among coworkers. The discussion also covered the four types of workplace violence as categorized by the California OSHA law:

1. Criminal intent, involving individuals with no legitimate business at the workplace committing crimes.
2. Violence directed at employees by customers, clients, visitors, or vendors.
3. Worker on worker violence, including incidents involving current or former employees, supervisors, or managers.
4. Personal relationship violence, highlighting the alarming statistic that 40% of women killed in the workplace are victims of an intimate partner.

This conversation underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding and implementation of workplace violence prevention measures, beyond mere response plans, to fully comply with legislative requirements and ensure a safe working environment.