Bullying

Will You Stop Gossiping?

by

The practice of occupational Health and Safety strives to keep employees safe at work.

Most of the time, this focus is on the physical workplace environment. We apply hazard recognition, risk assessment and control strategies for reducing and eliminating the number material or tactile incidents that cause harm to our colleagues and co-workers. As Human Resources professionals, it is our legal and moral obligation to ensure that preventative measures are in place to make people feel and be safe from harm when doing their jobs.

How do we apply this same level of care and control to psycho-social hazards, such as bullying, backbiting and gossiping in the workplace?

Glen Rolfsen explores a practical approach to dealing with toxic culture that comes from the very real practice of workplace bullying in this TedTalk.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYLb7WUtYt8[/embedyt]

As Rolfsen states, backbiting, or the spreading of gossip, is a form of bullying. People have been doing it for centuries. Why? Our basic self-interests come into play as gossiping about others seems to elevate ourselves and makes us appear more interesting to others. This may be true, but the negative impact on those others as a result of this type workplace bullying is as tangible as any type of physical workplace hazard.

Following a sound Health and Safety model, Rolfsen provides us with a three pronged tool for controlling the hazard of negative backbiting in the workplace. Before articulating negative gossip about others, he encourages us to apply the triple filter test and ask the questions: Is it true? Is it good? Is it useful? If the answer to any of these three questions is no, the solution is easy – stop talking. Stop spreading rumours, untruths and negative commentary about others.

What is the impact when workplaces stop bullying, backbiting and gossiping? There are positive, tangible results as evidenced by reduced absenteeism and increased productivity. All of these lead to the creation of a healthy workplace where employees can enjoy the feeling of both physical and psychosocial safety.

Rolfsen reminds us, as adults, to be role models for others. He asks us to make a conscious commitment and apply the triple filter test in our daily lives.

The question is there for us to respond in a positive way.

Let’s say yes, for a change.

Discussion Questions:

  1. When was the last time you gossiped about someone? What was the context?
  2. How does it feel knowing that you are the target of backbiting and gossip?
  3. For the next twenty-four hours, practice applying the three filter approach to your own words when commenting about others.
  4. What would your workplace feel like if there was no backbiting, bullying or gossip?

Crossing The Line

by
mantinov/Shutterstock

Unions in Canada have reasonable and legitimate rights that are included in their protection of the members they represent. These members are, at the same time, employees of a business that also has reasonable and legitimate rights as an employer.

When these rights collide with each other potentially dangerous and harmful conflicts can appear.

A recent decision by Unifor to post an online video identifying replacement workers (who crossed a picket line in order to work for an employer during legitimate strike action) provides us with a strong example of this type of harmful conflict. In the video, Unifor identifies each of the replacement workers visually, and by name, and labels them ‘scabs’.

Click here to read about Unifor’s actions and to view the video embedded in the article.

The union is clear about its rights-based rationale for proceeding with this type of ‘naming and shaming’ approach. As noted in the article and in other media responses, however, the video has not been received well by the public or by other union members. The posting of this video raises concerns about the potential for bullying that each of the identified individuals now faces. To make matters worse, visible identifiers such as race and gender may make these people more easily identifiable in a small community. Each person may be subject to increased targeting and potential harassment as a result.

In cases like this, eventual resolutions may well deal with the workplace issues identified in the terms and conditions of employment of the workers represented by the union. It is doubtful, however, that such resolutions will provide a positive conclusion for those who have been outed or harmed along the way.

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. If you were a member of Unifor, what would your reaction be to the ‘naming and shaming’ video?
  2. Under what circumstances would you cross a picket line?
  3. Do you think the hiring of replacement workers during a strike should be banned in all provinces? Explain your rationale.

 

Coffee With A Side of Bullying

by

In Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act includes recent amendments to address incidents of harassment, sexual harassment, and violence in the workplace. The importance of these amendments lies in the presumption that workplaces need to be safe, physically, and that employees can feel safe, psychologically.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act – Section 1, we know that the definition of workplace harassment means a person or persons “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” The same section of the act also identifies that “reasonable managerial actions” taken to direct workers is not or does not constitute workplace harassment.

When there is an allegation of harassment, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the employer must investigate and report on the results of that investigation. Further, an employee has the right to bring a complaint forward for investigation, based on their personal belief that they are being harassed.

These legislative parameters form an interesting backdrop when looking at the recent and on-going allegations of bullying by Tim Horton’s franchise owners. These are owner-employers who appear to have taken punitive measures against employees resulting from the implementation of amendments to the provincial Employment Standards Act.

Specifically, there has been much media focus on certain franchise owners, who have implemented cuts to benefits and working conditions for employees in a manner that has been reported as bullying. Bullying, while not defined specifically in legislation, falls into the category of workplace harassment.

Click here to read an article about the allegations of bullying Tim Horton’s employees.

In response to these allegations, the Ottawa District Labour Council set up a bullying hotline for individuals to report those employers who are engaged in these bullying practices. In turn, the labour council will publish the names of these bullying employers in order to provide a forum for public shaming of their actions.

Click here to read about the bullying hotline.

From the employer side, in this case, the justification for these actions comes from a need to balance the financial books. In order to provide the increases in wages, the employer appears to be implementing cuts in other areas of compensation so as not to suffer any additional losses in profits. Is it possible that these actions are reasonable and not, in fact, harassing or bullying?

Unfortunately, what seems to be missing is the ability of franchise employees to take reasonable and legitimate steps to report the perceived bullying behaviour on the part of their employer. In the absence of an HR department, reporting structures that include legislative requirements, or clear policies and procedures, it seems that small business and franchise employees continue to have limited options for potential support or resolution.

In these cases, employees often have one of two choices – either they comply with the employer’s demands or they quit. Neither option appears to support the reasonable and legitimate right to feel safe.

Discussion Questions:

  1. As a Human Resources consultant for a small business or a franchise, what types of procedures would you put into place that allow employees to report incidents of bullying or harassment? Be specific.
  2. If you were an employee in a Tim Horton’s franchise, how would you respond to the cuts to your work-related benefits? What actions would you take?
  3. Do you agree that the cuts to employee benefits implemented by some Tim Horton’s franchises are a form of harassment, as identified in Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act? Explain your rationale.

Strategic Bullying

by
Suat Gursozlu/Shutterstock

The changes to the minimum wage rate in Ontario are not just about compensation increases.

In January of this year (2018), legislation came into effect that amended numerous working conditions for employees in Ontario, including a stepped increase to the minimum wage for workers. Prior to the implementation of this particular piece of legislation, there were numerous headlines outlining the potential benefits and negative consequences impacting every employer in Ontario.

It should be no surprise, then, to read and hear about controversial employment practices as a result of these changes. Leading the negative storyline were the corporate heirs and franchise owners of the Tim Horton’s restaurant chain. The owners not only removed existing paid breaks and other paid benefits from employees, they also required existing employees to sign a document acknowledging (and accepting) these losses.

Click here to read the CBC report on this issue.

The premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, has called out the actions of the owners as ‘bullying’.

In her statements, the premier accuses the owners of taking out their frustrations with the legislative requirements on their employees and identifies this a bullying behaviour. This is an example of employer conduct, which identifies the actions and behaviours of the employer as setting the tone for the entire organization. If the employer acts in a way that is disrespectful of the law by de-valuing and de-grading their employees, what types of strategic messages or corporate values does this particular employer promote?

If the strategic, corporate objective is to earn profits, then the employer should be clear and direct that this is the first priority. However, when the employer promotes Canadian, family-based, feel-good values as part of its marketing campaigns, the implementation of bullying practices in order to achieve the strategic objective of profits at all costs, leaves a very bitter taste.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What types of values does the Tim Horton’s brand promote in its media campaigns?
  2. From an HR perspective, how should these values present themselves within a Tim Horton’s franchise?
  3. How does bullying ‘from the top’ influence organizational behaviour?
  4. From a values perspective, identify specific changes you would make, as an owner of a Tim Horton’s franchise, in order to
    1. comply with the new legislation.
    2. benefit both the employees and the organization.