OK, pop quiz. A local car dealership sells a car to a new customer. A week later, that same automobile is used in a terrorist car bombing. The business can't be held liable for what the customer did, right?
Wrong, according to several U.S. law enforcement agencies. In fact, if your company provides products or services to a terrorist or identity thief, it may face six-figure fines -- or even jail time for its officers.
"With all of the focus put on compliance and security breaches, it's easy to overlook these requirements around identity and law enforcement," notes Brian Bradley, executive vice president of strategy and emerging markets at MicroBilt, which vets customers and trading partners on behalf of its small-business clients. "It's another level of compliance that a lot of companies don't even know about."...
We must continue to make the world a safer place for our children, the elderly and the mentally disabled – those who are most vulnerable to sexual predators.
Federal and state legislation over the past several years has enhanced requirements for sex offender registration, enabled states to share registry information and required many entities, such as school districts, daycare centers and nonprofit organizations, to perform criminal background checks.
Without these measures, sexual predators could infiltrate our communities without notice.
That was the case in Montgomery County in 2002, when a man who had molested nearly 40 Louisiana youths, mostly boys, was working and living here.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A senator on Wednesday said a new piece of legislation would make children safer by imposing stricter background checks for camp employees.
Senate Bill 321, which was introduced this week, would require background checks for all camp staff, 10TV's Maureen Kocot reported.
The bill would also require FBI checks for any employee who has not lived in Ohio for the past five years, and require social security number background checks on all camp volunteers.
The legislation proposal stemmed from an incident last summer when camp volunteer Timothy Keil was arrested and later convicted of fondling young boys inside a cabin.
The arrest highlighted a loophole in Ohio law.
If you haven't noticed, we've made some changes. We've added some new features like the Previous Search Queries, reorganized your Receipts and Orders as well as increased the speed of search results. We are constantly trying to improve our service and will be making more improvements over the next few months. If there's a feature you would like to see, please let us know!
Due to data updates, MVR Reports are temporarily unavailable until approximately April 15, 2005. AccuReport will notify our clients when the MVR Reports are available. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
We hope everyone enjoys the new look of the website. We are always trying to improve the site to help with your reporting needs. If you have a suggestion, please let us know!
A new look at data on workplace shooting events and bullying incidents provides security directors with additional insight into their companies' risk of falling victim to tragic workplace events. Overall, while the data suggest companies must maintain an "it can happen anywhere" mindset, they also indicate that workplace shootings and their precursors have patterns of predictability, which offers security professionals an ability to target risk factors and reduce the threat.
Workplace shootings. In the past decade in the U.S., there have been 164 workplace shootings in which robbery was not the motive. These events have resulted in the deaths of 290 employees and wounded 161 others, according to a new report, Terror Nine to Five: Guns in the American Workplace, 1994-2003 (May 2004; Handgun-Free America; Arlington, Va.; www.handgunfree.org). Unfortunately, the report suggests that workplace shootings are not abating: So far in 2004, for example, there have been 29 workplace shootings that have claimed the lives of 36 workers and injured 15 others.
Although the authors of Guns in the American Workplace have a clear anti-gun agenda, the data for the report are gleaned directly from independent news accounts of workplace shootings, which makes the information regarding risk factors-if perhaps not the conclusions-relevant to all security directors who want to understand the "who, why, and how" of tragic workplace shooting events.
What do the data tell us? It's a bit of a mixed message. On one hand, the data indicate that no workplace is immune. A breakdown of workplace shootings in 2003 reveals a remarkably diverse group of employers on the list of victims- from a Marriott Hotel in Huntsville, Ala. to Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland to a Century 21 real estate office in San Antonio.
For security directors who wonder, "Could it happen to us?" The short answer is clearly "Yes." And there are other data that point to a "no workplace is immune" conclusion:
While the location and type of business vary dramatically in workplace shootings, "people who shoot and kill their coworkers share a number of similar characteristics," the report concludes. "The most common factor uncovered in those who resort to shooting their coworkers and supervisors is employment status," the study found. Offenders are likely to be employees who have recently experienced a negative change in employment status, including those who have been fired, whose contracts have not been renewed, or who have been suspended because of a dispute with management.
According to the data: 51.8% of those who committed workplace shootings experienced a negative change in employment status, including 23.8% who were fired or laid off and 28% who were demoted, suspended, or involved in some type of financial dispute with management. Employment-related reasons for turning violent on coworkers and/or supervisors ranged from being fired after stealing from the company, assignment to a certain shift or work schedule, being turned down for a promotion, and being told to calm down and take the rest of the day off.
Workplace shootings are also similar with respect to:
The data on workplace shootings, besides exhibiting a number of patterns, suggest other ways these tragedies may be preventable. Consider:
What's it all mean? Besides emphasizing that all workplaces need to address workplace violence, we think the data reinforce the view that workplace supervisors are the hinge on which a violence prevention program swings. Line supervisors, more than any other employee, are the intersection points between workers and the events that the survey shows can lead to workplace violence.
Supervisors need workplace violence prevention training so they can handle conflicts and deal with sensitive employment issues, spot signs of trouble and changes in behavior, and provide workers with a safe place to report trouble. Given what we know about workplace shootings, providing this training is a company's best chance to ensure "it can't happen here."
Data on workplace bullying. Supervisors also hold the key to the prevention of workplace bullying, which is often a precursor to violent incidents, according to early survey findings by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (www.cdc.gov/niosh). At the 2004 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, NIOSH provided a progress report of its investigation into workplace stress and bullying incidents. So far, data from 516 private and public organizations indicate that 24.5% of organizations have had incidents of bullying in the previous year, and of those incidents:
While supervisors may lack some ability to prevent customers from bullying workers, they clearly have a role in mediating conflicts among employees. In this way, supervisors are on the front line of company efforts to prevent bullying incidents from becoming a full-blown security event. The study defined bullying as repeated intimidation, slandering, social isolation, or humiliation by one or more persons against another.
Note: Preventing shootings is also easier if employees don't have any guns to shoot (see "How Should You Respond to the New State Laws That Allow Concealed Weapons" SDR June 2004). A recent state Supreme Court decision reinforces an employer's right to develop whatever policy it wants with respect to weapons in the workplace (see the sidebar, "When Guns Are the Issue, Company Policy Trumps State Law"). When Guns Are the Issue, Company Policy Trumps State Law
Case in point: America Online, Inc. fired three employees for bringing firearms onto its employee parking lot, which prompted the discharged workers to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.
However, the Supreme Court of Utah has just tossed out the case. Justice Ronald E. Nehring, writing on the state high court's behalf, said that although Utah allows citizens the right to keep and bear arms, the state's policy "cannot supplant the right of an employer to regulate the possession of firearms by employees within the workplace environment."
In the aftermath of the Utah ruling, Brian Siebel, a consultant to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Washington, D.C.; 2020-289-7319; www.bradycenter. org), noted: "In Utah, as in other states, an employer's right to protect its employees by enforcing a ban on weapons in the workplace trumps state and local laws permitting possession of concealed weapons." (Hansen vs. America Online, Inc., Utah, No. 20020288, 7/20/04.)
"BACKGROUND SCREENINGS would not have stopped 9/11," states Jason Morris of Background Information Services Inc. But they "absolutely" make for a safer workplace, says the president and co-founder of the Beachwood, Ohio, firm that provides pre-employment screening and background checks. "Employees are your biggest liability. Any time you bring an employee on, you're adding risk."
Workplace violence is a growing issue, says Shannon Shinaberry, an attorney in the labor and employment department at Cleveland-based law firm McDonald Hopkins Co. LPA. Employers have an obligation to address that risk, he says.
"There are laws called, for example, negligent hiring [and] negligent retention, where the employer can be responsible for violence that its employees commit," states Shinaberry.
He suggests a three-stage approach to protecting workers that addresses pre-employment, employment and termination.
During pre-employment, "Are you doing background checks? Are you doing screening? That's obviously the first step in being able to screen out people who are potential problems," Shinaberry says.
In the course of conducting background checks, Morris says his company finds that 9% to 11% of the persons under investigation have criminal records, while work and employment verifications uncover discrepancies 56% of the time.
Secondly, says Shinaberry, create protection within the workplace. "Have a workplace violence policy that everybody is aware of and everybody understands. A policy that prohibits any weapons being brought into the facility and even a policy that makes it known that if you have lockers or areas that employees use, they should not consider those to be private -- that the employer reserves the right to be able to search those," the attorney says.
Train supervisors to recognize the signs of potential workplace violence, Shinaberry says, and then make it clear "who they need to come to if they recognize these problems potentially developing." The policy should state how management responds to a developing issue once it is reported. The policy also should address terminations "to make sure that you eliminate the potential for violence against co-workers and against the people in management who are delivering the news."
A step-by-step workplace violence policy eliminates confusion, Shinaberry says. "[It] allows you in a very precarious situation to address it appropriately and immediately."
Many employers need to take a more formal and comprehensive approach to preventing workplace violence, according to a new report by the American Society of Safety Engineers.
According to the ASSE's findings, 74% of the 755 members who responded said their organizations had not yet conducted a formal risk assessment of the potential for violent acts in their workplace.
In addition, 80% of the surveyed organizations do not have a written policy addressing violent acts, while only 50% have procedures to notify management of threats from clients or the public, according to the report, which was prepared by the ASSE's Risk Management/Insurance Practice Specialty group.
"These are surprising results, and we are concerned that more is not being done to address workplace violence," said Gene Barfield, president of the Des Plaines, Ill.-based ASSE. He also is director of professional safety, health and environmental services for Acadian Integrated Solutions L.L.C. in Lafayette, La.
The importance of the topic is underscored by the latest statistics available from the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health.
Each week in the United States, "17 employees on average are murdered at work, and 33,000 on average are assaulted," NIOSH said in a recent statement.
In addition, "homicide in the workplace is the third leading cause of job-related fatalities and the second leading cause of job-related fatalities for women," the agency reported.
Forty-four percent of respondents reported incidents of workplace violence within the past five years.
The survey defined workplace violence broadly to include homicides, physical attacks, rapes, aggravated and other assaults, and verbal threats, according to survey co-author JoAnn M. Sullivan, senior vp of risk consulting in the Phoenix office of Marsh USA Inc.
According to NIOSH, factors that place workers at risk for violence include "interacting with the public, exchanging money, delivering services or goods, working late into the night or during early morning hours, working alone, guarding valuables or property and dealing with violent people or volatile situations."
In comparing results with a similar survey in 1999, ASSE researchers found few changes in the number and type of anti-violence programs at responding companies, which represented a wide range of industries and public entities.
Employers should consider implementing violence protection programs in the workplace for several reasons, including their own liability, observers note. Under federal and state laws, employers have a general duty to provide each employee with a workplace free of recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause, death or serious harm, Ms. Sullivan said.
An employer's "liability exposure can be significantly larger than its workers compensation exposure," said survey co-author Steven NyBlom, assistant division chief of loss control and prevention for Los Angeles County in Los Angeles. If an employer is negligent, the employee may be able to recover punitive damages outside of the workers comp system. In addition, other types of violent incidents have led to recoveries under employers' other insurance coverages, including general liability, employment practices liability and crime insurance, according to the survey.
"Post 9/11, workplace violence has taken a backseat to terrorism" concerns among employers, said Robert Cartwright Jr., regional safety/health manager for the Northeast zone of BFS Retail & Commercial Operations L.L.C. in Exton, Pa. The operation is a part of Bridgestone Firestone America Holdings.
"An employer needs to have a proactive (violence prevention) program, not a reactive one," said Mr. Cartwright, who is also the Risk & Insurance Management Society Inc.'s vice chairman of its External Affairs Committee. Too often, employers define "workplace violence" too narrowly, such as the impact a robbery might have on the workforce, he said.
Bridgestone Firestone, however, has addressed workplace violence "broadly," and has comprehensive policies and programs that apply to managers and employees alike, he said.
Los Angeles County's anti-violence program, also, "has a lot of elements that a safety professional would like to see," Mr. NyBlom said. For example, the county, which has 90,000 employees, has a designated Office of Security Management to help resolve violent incidents as well the ability to draw on other response options, ranging from sheriffs' police to counselors, he said.
The potentially high cost of implementing a comprehensive program should not hinder employers' efforts to improve their violence-prevention efforts, Ms. Sullivan said. Employers can keep costs down by using free informational materials from government resources as well as public entities, whose Web sites are listed in the report, Ms. Sullivan said.
One of the latest options is a free new training and educational DVD from NIOSH that includes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's guidelines for preventing workplace violence in health care settings, late-night retail settings and taxicab services.
