Unions demand 'zero tolerance' of workplace violence

In December 2002, a joint TUC, CBI and Health and Safety Executive seminar heard details of new trade union evidence of growing levels of violence at work in the UK. Against the background of union demands for 'zero tolerance' of workplace violence, this feature examines the problem in the context of four particularly vulnerable occupations - nursing, teaching, public transport and retail.

In August 2002, a woman was jailed for three months for assaulting a pregnant teacher during an argument over the price of a school trip. Also during 2002, another teacher was left with a visual impairment after she was head-butted by a four-year-old. Earlier in the year, a bus driver needed surgery after being shot in the face with an airgun. These are just some examples of the everyday risk workers in some sectors and occupations face of verbal abuse and physical violence, ranging from shouting and swearing to punching and stabbing. Survey evidence, together with evidence gathered by trade unions, suggests that public sector workers and those whose work involves direct contact with the public are especially vulnerable. Such evidence was presented on 2 December 2002 at a joint Trades Union Congress (TUC), Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) seminar.

Defining workplace violence

Beyond the 'headline-grabbing' cases, how workplace violence is defined is important for evaluating the extent of the problem and for identifying the areas needing action or policy initiatives. People’s understanding of what violence is will also influence their perceptions of risk in their own jobs. The British Crime Survey defines workplace violence as 'all assaults or threats which occurred while the victim was working and were perpetrated by members of the public'. Using this definition, an HSE/Home Office report, Violence at work, based on findings from the British Crime Survey, records almost 1.3 million violent incidents in 2000, 634,000 of which were physical assaults and 654,000 of which were threats. Between 1997 and 1999, the total number of incidents is estimated to have increased by 5%.

The British Crime Survey definition is inclusive, in so far as verbal abuse counts as much as physical assault, but its limitation is that it includes only incidents 'perpetrated by members of the public'. The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions' Third European survey on working conditions, for example, reveals significant levels of physical violence from people in the workplace too. It suggests that professionals and management are more exposed to violence from outside the workplace, while service and sales workers are more exposed to violence from both within and outside. The Foundation survey includes sexual harassment and intimidation and bullying, both of which women are more subjected to than men. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) also suggests that cumulative incidents of sexual harassment or bullying can come to constitute violence.

The HSE/Home Office report finds that workers have generally low levels of worry about the risk of violence and it stresses that the actual risk to individuals is relatively low at 2.5% of workers. The TUC, meanwhile, claims that a far higher figure of one in five people at work are attacked or abused every year. However, even taking the HSE definition and incidence level, there is considerable occupational variation both in perceived and actual risk. For example, 47% of public transport workers were worried about threats, compared with 46% of nurses, 29% of retail workers and 20% of teachers. Concern about assaults was lower at 46% of public transport workers, 42% of nurses, 24% of retail workers and 13% of teachers.

Workers at risk

Any worker is potentially at risk of workplace violence, particularly if a more inclusive definition is adopted, as discussed above. Interestingly, a TUC survey published in 2002 finds regional variations in levels of reported violence, with Scotland having the lowest incidence (9% of workplaces, compared with the national average of 16%), whilst London and the North East have the highest incidence (at 25% and 27% respectively). The same survey (using the HSE definition of violence) finds that violence is a problem only in the sectors involving work with the public: public administration (27% of workplaces), health and social work (26%), transport (21%) and education (18%). Women are generally more at risk than men, but this is largely because women are concentrated in sectors and occupations where violence is most prevalent, including nursing, teaching and retail.

In education, recent HSE statistics for assaults on teachers show a 26% increase between 1998-9 and 1999-2000. The third-largest teachers’ trade union, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), received more than 120 complaints in 2001 from teachers about physical abuse. In the National Health Service (NHS), figures from the Department of Health show there were a staggering 84,273 attacks against doctors, nurses and other staff between April 2000 and March 2001. This represents an increase from 65,000 incidents in the previous year. In the retail sector, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) says that more than 19,000 shop workers were attacked in 2001 in incidents involving armed robbery, kidnap, CS gas attacks, knives and iron bars. The Transport and General Workers’ Union is also concerned about the mounting number of attacks on bus drivers, as well as the increasing verbal abuse that workers are faced with.

Preventing workplace violence

Employers’ organisations and trade unions appear to agree that violence should not be taken for granted, as part of the job, by either employers or employees. The government, employers and unions have called for 'zero tolerance' of workplace violence. The former education secretary, Estelle Morris, for example, backed the ATL’s call for school governing bodies and local authorities to prosecute every parent who assaults a teacher. Indeed, just as with other risks, employers have a legal responsibility to identify risks of violence and seek to prevent them. However, the union view tends to be that employers are not doing enough. There is also a view that the incidence of violence is greater than official recording suggests because people do not always understand what is mean by the term 'workplace violence', possibly assuming it to refer to physical assault only. Reporting of incidents needs to be encouraged so that areas of vulnerability can be identified and action taken. The unions include the issue of violence on health and safety courses to encourage workplace representatives to be alert to risk areas.

Practical preventive measures include:

• tightening security on the premises or in vehicles (for example the installation of protective screens, CCTV cameras, panic buttons, two-way radios, etc);

• withholding the service (for example refusal to treat a patient or exclusion of a pupil from school); and

• training 'at risk' workers to diffuse violent situations and behaviour.

The trade unions support all these measures, but argue for a full package of initiatives rather than a 'pick-and-mix' approach.

Commentary

John Hannett, deputy general secretary of USDAW, told the Labour Party annual conference on 2 October 2002 that workplace violence is a 'barometer of UK life in the 21st century'. In the context of violence in the retail sector, Mr Hannett also condemned the 'have a go mentality' fuelled by media reports of 'heroic' attempts by shop workers to prevent retail crime. In terms of the broader issue of tackling workplace violence, Mr Hannett’s comments point to the need to understand how and why violence occurs, rather than simply increasing the defences and punishments. For example, prosecuting perpetrators might provide redress for individual victims of violence, but it can hardly be regarded as a preventive measure or even a deterrent. Similarly, counselling and support for victims, whilst undoubtedly important, is not a solution. Paradoxically, increasing defences could also exacerbate the problem. For example, making places like hospitals or benefit offices into fortresses is not necessarily the answer and could make them far more dangerous places to work than presently.

It can also be argued that the government’s promotion of a 'customer culture' in the public sector and the consequent rising expectations of quality of service are not matched by the salaries of public sector workers such as nurses and teachers. Low staff morale and poor motivation is now endemic in much of the public sector, leading to recruitment and retention problems, which can only compound 'customer' dissatisfaction with service delivery, the outcome of which could be increased frustration, aggression and violence. Any measures that do not tackle these deeper causes of workplace violence will simply be tinkering at the margins of a very serious problem. (Gill Kirton, London Metropolitan University)