Desperate Housewife Bullied?

Judge Elizabeth White declared a mistrial on 3/19/12 after the jurors reported they were deadlocked. Eight supported actress Nicollette Sheridan’s claim; four didn’t. .Judge White on 3/13/12 issued a directed verdict dismissing the battery claim  and Michael Reinhart, who has supervised construction of the show’s sets since it began eight years ago, testified he was copied on an email in 2010 — shortly after Sheridan filed her lawsuits — in which ABC/Disney executives discussed having IT wipe computer hard drives to eliminate any reference to Sheridan’s termination. And the Human Resources so-called “professional” who investigated Sheridan’s complaint that she was slapped by Cherry failed to interview Cherry!!! PGB

This woman was allegedly assaulted by her boss and then killed off.

The trial began this week in a case brought by Actress Nicollette Sheridan, formerly of the ABC soap opera Desperate Housewives, who alleges she was whacked upside the head by the hit show’s creator Marc Cherry and then killed off  when she complained to ABC.

Sheridan alleged Cherry slapped her  in the face with his hand during a rehearsal on September 24, 2008 after the two had an argument regarding a cut line of dialogue. When Sheridan complained to ABC, she says she was fired in retaliation — her Desperate Housewives character, Edie Britt, was killed in a freak electrical accident in April of 2009.

ABC has argued that the decision to kill off Edie Britt was made prior to the alleged smackdown and that the supposed slap was a mere tap, done for the purposes of artistic direction.

“This is a man hitting a woman in the head — hard — without her consent,” said Sheridan’s attorney, Mark Baute.

Battery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person. While battery requires intent, the prevailing tort definition does not require an intent to harm.  It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact.

Sheridan’s lawsuit initially alleged damages over claims of sexual and gender harassment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination and more. However, during the pre-trial phase, the judge threw out some claims and the actress dropped others. Now the case involves claims of wrongful termination and battery.

If Sheridan wins, a judge has ruled that she will be eligible to reclaim one year’s salary, not the $20 in pay for the show’s full run that she originally sought. Her attorneys are seeking almost $6 million.

A sad reality of this type of case is that Sheriden, 48, is out in the metaphorical cold while ABC continues to be a major television network. ABC lists as potential witnesses many of Sheridan’s former co-workers – including Desperate Housewives cast members Marcia Cross, Teri Hatcher, Felicity Huffman and Eva Longoria. Of course, if Sheridan’s allegations are true, the remaining Housewives stars presumably do not wish to be killed off like Edie Britt until the series ends this season.

Workplace Bullying: America Lags Behind

It is a disgrace that America is one of the only industrialized countries in the world that tolerates workplace bullying.

Please sign a petition asking the Obama administration to formulate a national strategy to halt workplace bullying. The petition, created by a coalition of workplace anti-bully advocates (including this blog), can be found at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-us-workers/.

Among other countries, America lags behind the 32 members and participating states of the European Union that voted in 2007 to require all employers to address and prevent workplace bullying.  Sweden acted in 1993!

The World Health Organization calls workplace bullying a major public health problem.  There is overwhelming research showing that targets of workplace bullying may suffer a variety of long-and short-term mental and physical health problems. A high level of stress in the workplace is linked to chronic disease, including cardiovascular disease.

If you happen to be the one-in-four American workers who are afflicted with bullying, you will quickly find that no federal or state law exists to protect you.  Sure, the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 requires employers to provide all workers with a safe workplace but the OSH Act is not enforced with respect to workplace bulling. Even if you can shoehorn your complaint into an existing law, it will be an expensive, long, uphill battle.  You may also find that the American judiciary is not knowledgeable or sympathetic to the plight of workers.

Surveys show that most targets of bullying are either forced to quit or resign.

In a little more than two weeks, about 7,000 people have signed the petition. Surely this is evidence of the overwhelming nature of this problem, especially in our current dire economy, with an aging workforce that cannot afford to quit or retire. When you sign the petition, an email is dispatched to both the White House and to the Labor Secretary.

Here are some recent comments from the petition:

  •  Workplace bullying has to end! My diabetic dad is too afraid to speak out against his coworker and boss who are creating a severe hostile work environment for fear of losing his job. This epidemic has to stop.
  • Workers who bully are unprofessional and immature and psychologically disturbed, and contribute to health problems in their targets and increased absenteeism and med costs. Remove the bullies, the work environment should be on a professional par with other industrialized countries, and not a playpen or a refuge for sociopaths.
  •  I too was bullied by a supervisor, who was a bully while in school. He would snark at me, make fun of my work if my way of performing the task was different than how he envisioned (my way was more time-efficient even), roll his eyes at my comments, and such. Once when he was asking me for some personal info I finally told him, ‘why would I give a bully additional info to use against me?’ I had lots of hair loss, high blood pressure, unsettling dreams leading to unsettled sleep patterns, and felt tired all the time. I did finally make it to retirement, whew, and it took 6-10 months for my body to realign from all the stress.
  •  I had loved my job and the people I worked for and with; but after seeing my boss bully and harass employees until they quit or are fired; it suddenly became my turn. i could not understand why a guy that i gave everything to 12- 15 hours a day, would harass me and call me names to the point where I would be hospitalized several times for severe anxiety disorder, and have to live with it and medication. all caused by one man that felt that with power and riches he can ruin anyone’s life he chooses.
  •  Bullies aren’t found only in the schools. Some graduate to become workplace bullies. Just because they are chronologically adult doesn’t guarantee they will act responsibly. Please act to protect working Americans.

SIGN PETITION: STOP WORKPLACE BULLYING!

Now you can do something about the epidemic of workplace bullying!

Please sign this petition to ask President Obama and the Secretary of Labor  to formulate uniform national legislation to protect American workers from this widely recognized form of workplace violence.

The petition drive is sponsored by this blog (When the Abuser Goes to Work) and other workplace anti-bully advocates.

Workplace bullying is devastating to the mental and physical health of targets and it costs employees, employers and taxpayers billions each year in lost productivity, absenteeism and health and social welfare costs.

America lags far behind other industrialized countries on this issue. Sweden adopted a workplace anti-bully law in 1993. The 32 countries of the European Union agreed in 2007 to require employers to prevent and protect workers from workplace bullying. Workers in Turkey and Estonia have protection from workplace bullying – why don’t we?

A 2011 survey by CareerBuilder found that 27 percent of American workers report having been bullied in the workplace. The short-term impact of this form of abuse is severe anxiety, depression, insomnia, etc. The long-term impact of high stress is chronic disease,  including cardiovascular disease.

The vast majority of targets have little or no legal recourse. For many, the only hope is to quit and face chronic unemployment.

Ron Paul to sexual harrassment victims — Go home?

Unlike Herman Cain, his former competitor in the GOP presidential race,  Ron Paul is not facing accusations of sexual harassment.

However, Paul, a member of the U.S. Congress from Texas, may be accused of having stunningly little understanding of the problem.

Earlier this month, Paul told Fox News he is standing by statements he made in a 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, that workers who are targets of sexual harassment must bear some responsibility for the abuse and do not require any special legal protection.

“Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts?” wrote Paul. “Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how come the harassee escapes some responsibility for the problem about sexual harassment in the workplace.”

Earlier this month, host Chris Wallace of  Fox News Sunday asked Paul whether he still agreed with those 1987 statements.  Paul said he does, adding that neither verbal and physical harassment  warrants a federal law.

Regarding the issue of verbal harassment, Paul said:  “If it’s just because somebody told a joke to somebody who was offended, they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman come in and put penalties on those individuals. They have to say maybe this is not a very good environment. They have the right to work there or not work there.”

Paul said workers who are victims of physical sexual harassment also do not require protection from a federal law because there already are laws prohibiting assault and rape.

“Because people are insulted by rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case about it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that. People should deal with that at home,” he said.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment, which is a form of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has said that Title VII doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious.  Harassment becomes illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

In other words,  to be actionable, victims of sexual harassment must feel their very freedom to work  is … under siege.

Other Options to Halt Workplace Bullying

After a decade, questions are being raised about whether the state-by-state campaign to pass the so-called Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) is a realistic solution to the epidemic of workplace bullying in the United States.

This blog suggested last fall that it was time to think about options other than the HWB,  which was first proposed a decade ago and has yet be adopted by any of the 20 states that have considered it. I proposed that the U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis empanel a task force to study the problem and propose new legislation on how to best address the problem of workplace bullying nationally.

The Vermont Senate has thrown out efforts to pass the HWB in that state and voted to create a task force to determine the best way to provide relief and redress for state residents suffering in abusive work environments.   Senate Bill 52 suggests looking at different models to remedy workplace bullying, including:

  • Create a private right of action that would include the recovery of damages (like the HWB).
  • Create a mechanism for injunctive relief similar to those relating to stalking, hate crimes, or relief-from-abuse orders.
  • State enforcement similar to the employment discrimination law.
  • State enforcement by the Vermont occupational safety and health administration.

Gary Namie, the director of the Workplace Bullying Institute, this week issued a defense of the HWB  which the institute has supported since it was drafted by Suffolk University Law Professor David Yamada in 2002.

Namie primarily argues the HWB’s private right of action is best because it is “revenue neutral” and won’t burden states financially.

For the following reasons, I support a different approach:

  •  Proponents of the HWB have been advocating for a decade to pass the HWB in individual states. Twenty states have considered the HWB so far but no state has passed a bill. One state might yet be persuaded to pass a version of the HWB but it could take decades for a significant number of states to do so.  Some extreme pro-business states will never voluntarily pass a workplace anti-bully bill, just as they have fought tooth-and-nail against other workplace protections.
  • The HWB as proposed is anemic. It contains hurdles that are not found in laws adopted in other industrialized countries, or in other U.S. civil rights laws involving the concept of a hostile work environment. These hurdles include requirements that targets prove malice and psychological injury and a $25,000 cap on damages for targets who are not demoted or fired. Many – if not most  — targets will find it difficult or impossible to obtain a meaningful remedy.  (Namie and Yamada refused to respond to questions about the troubling language of the HWB.)
  • Under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 (OSH Act), employers are required to provide employees with a safe workplace. Overwhelming research shows that workplace bullying can result in potentially serious mental and physical harm.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which administers the OSH act, should protect workers from bullying, just as it protects workers from physical hazards. It’s not a question of passing a new law but enforcing the OSH Act.  (Last year, OSHA adopted a workplace anti-bully policy for its own workers.)
  • Workplace bullying is widely acknowledged to be a form of workplace violence.  Although it is primarily psychological in nature, it can lead to physical violence. It exists on the same spectrum of violence as domestic violence and elder or child abuse, all of which are addressed on a federal and state level.  One of the core functions of society is to protect its vulnerable citizens from violence. The HWB provides a private right of action.  This means that its enforcement mechanism is the embattled target, who after months or decades of bullying may lack the emotional, physical, and financial resources to hire an attorney and to embark on lengthy litigation with an uncertain outcome.  What happens if a target cannot or will not act? The bully moves on to his or her next target.
  • A workplace bully is not always an individual. Employers  use “strategic harassment” to get rid of workers who demand their rights and to cheat workers out of their legal rights – such as unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, and/or fair pay and benefits.  A target suing a single employer cannot solve this problem.

 Other arguments advanced by Namie lack persuasiveness.

An enforcement action by a federal agency would be covered by the press, just like a private lawsuit.

And, yes, the  monetary penalty for state and federal OSH Act violations is insufficient but this can and should be addressed.   OSHA citations also trigger other penalties (including possible criminal sanctions) and an expensive investigation and hearing process.  Employers work diligently to avoid OSHA citations.

Namie and Yamada are concerned about the risk of burdening the court system with cases that rest on “hurt feelings” rather than true bullying. But wouldn’t this argument apply equally to any other lawsuit involving a complaint of a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment or race discrimination lawsuits? Where is the evidence to suggest that frivolous lawsuits will be a particular problem with respect to workplace bullying? And why should this be a focus of concern for anti-bully advocates? Isn’t this what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does?

Vermont’s bill notes that the Vermont office of attorney general’s civil rights unit reports that of the 1,200 to 1,300 requests for assistance it receives each year, a substantial number involve allegations of severe workplace bullying that cannot be addressed by current state or federal law or common law tort claims.

The United States lags behind many other industrialized countries in addressing workplace bullying.  That is shameful.  We owe a debt to Namie and Yamada for significantly helping to raise public awareness about the problem of workplace bullying, and for their extensive work on the issue. However, a solution is long overdue.  It is time to consider other options to protect the one in four American workers who suffer with this insidious health and safety problem.

KiVa: Teaching Bystanders to Care

One of the most hurtful things about workplace bullying is the isolation felt by the target when co-workers run for cover or, worse, support the bully.

A new school anti-bullying program developed in Finland in 2007 is proving to be surprisingly successful in eliminating bullying by focusing upon the bystanders who witness the bullying but do nothing.

The program  KiVa,  is based upon the premise that bullies are rewarded by earning higher social status because of their bullying.  The program encourages bystanders to show that they are against bullying and to support the target.  KiVA empowers students to defend targets through skill-building and education, including 20 hours of activities such as discussion, group work, films, role-playing, and computer exercises.

Many school anti-bully programs show marginal results but a large scale 2011 study showed that KiVa halved the risk of bullying others and of being victimized in just one school year.  Substantial decreases also emerged for other antisocial behaviors, such as vandalism, theft, and truancy, in addition to an increase in general satisfaction with school life.

Science Daily reports that an interdisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Kansas (KU) plan to bring the KiVa program to American schools. Starting as early as the 2012-13 school year, a pilot program could kick off in selected classrooms in Lawrence, Kan. If shown to be successful there, the model could expand nationally.

KiVa was developed at the University of Turku, Finland, with funding from Finlands’ Ministry of Education and Culture. In Finland, 90 % of all comprehensive schools are implementing the KiVa program.  The KiVa program won the European Crime Prevention Award in 2009.

KiVa  takes a holistic approach to the bullying problem, including a rigorous classroom curriculum, videos, posters, a computer game and role-play exercises that are designed to make schools inhospitable to bullying.

When bullying episodes occur, a small team of trained employees addresses the incident with the victim and bully or bullies to ensure bullying stops.  Peers of the victim are challenged to provide support for the victimized classmate.

“It changes the rewards structure,” said Patricia Hawley, KU associate professor of developmental psychology.. “At the end of the day, the goals of the bully are like yours and mine — they want friendship and status. They have human goals, not pathological ones. With KiVa, bystanders are set up to win by intervening, and their status can go up. As a bystander, I can achieve goals of friendship and status by standing up to a bully.”

The implications of the KiVa model for the workforce are obvious. What if employers approached the problem of bullying holistically, with the goal of insuring that bullying behavior is not rewarded?  Teams of employees could be trained to address individual complaints, and co-workers could be  encouraged to show empathy and support to targets.  Who knows? Maybe employers, like schools, would find their efforts rewarded by improved morale and substantial decreases in other antisocial behaviors, such as vandalism, theft, and truancy. Wouldn’t that alone be worth the effort?

KiVa is a Finnish acronym for Kiusaamista Vastaan, “against bullying”)

Resolved … Don’t Be Evil

The vast majority of workplace bullies don’t think of themselves that way. They justify or make excuses about their behavior. However, I suspect that many workplace bullies – at least those who are not actual psychopaths or sociopaths – do know on some level that what they are doing is wrong.

Every manager should consider the following:

  • How would you feel if your mother, child or partner was treated the way you treat your target? Not so good? Then what you are doing is wrong.
  • Are you flattering yourself?  Are you really a perfectionist trying to get the best out of your workforce or are you a petty tyrant satisfying a personal need for power and control?  If the latter, your actions are damaging both the target and your employer.
  •  There is a fine line between workplace abuse and other forms of abuse, including intimate partner abuse, child abuse and elder abuse. Especially for those in a supervisory position, when you zero in on a subordinate target, visualize a small child who is about to be smacked.
  •  Yes, some employees deserve to be disciplined and/ or fired but there is a difference between exercising legitimate supervisory authority and bullying. No employee ever deserves to be treated disrespectfully or bullied.
  • If you are an employer who is using bullying strategically to avoid a legal obligation – such as paying workers compensation – you are taking a serious risk. Sometimes targets of bullying do not simply fade into obscurity. They hire lawyers and sue.  And whether they win or lose, you will pay.
  •  Bullies are “ fortunate” to work in the United States, which unlike many other industrialized countries for decades has ignored  overwhelming research that workplace bullying causes potentially severe mental and physical damages to targets. But times are changing. Educated employers do not tolerate bullying because they know that they ultimately pick up the tab in terms of needless turnover, absenteeism, higher health costs, litigation, etc.
  • If you are a Human Resources “professional” and you turn a blind eye when a worker complains to you about being bullied – or make things worse for the target – you are part of the problem.  You are acting unethically and doing a great disservice to your employer.

New research is showing that workplace bullies are often their own worst enemies.  American is growing less tolerant of this kind of management style.  It’s one thing if a manager gets an isolated complaint but it can quickly end a promising  career when there are multiple bullying complaints. For all of the above reasons and many more, I propose the following resolution for workplace bullies in 2012:

  DON’T BE EVIL!

The Veil over the U.S. Supreme Court

In Cleveland, puppets are being used by a TV station to reenact excerpts from a political corruption trial that is closed to the public … Why not have puppets reenact  U.S. Supreme Court hearings?  Big Bird could play Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Abbie Cadabby could play Elena Kagen. PGB

 

Our society is increasingly divided between the “haves” and the “have nots,” with the vast majority of Americans now strongly disapproving of the way that government is operating.

The President and the U.S. Congress receive much of the blame because they are seen fumbling in prime-time under glare of the television spotlight. But there is another equally or even more powerful branch of government that manages to stay out of the spotlight – the judiciary, led by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you think that corporations have disproportionate influence in American government, you need only look to the Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), holding that corporate funding of “independent” political broadcasts in elections is protected speech under the First Amendment. That ruling alone has spurred a tsunami of money into partisan election politics from corporations seeking to advance their interests.

Most people today “watch” their news on television or the Internet. Refusing to be televised is akin to insisting in 1440 that the bible be penned in ink by monks, longhand, rather than printed on the newfangled Gutenberg printing press. However, federal judges are elected for life and if they don’t want to be televised then who’s going to make them?

Now the Court is getting another opportunity to affect the balance of interests between corporate America and the average American. The Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, which is being challenged by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business.

A recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 72% of the people surveyed think the Court should allow cameras to televise oral arguments on the health care law, which are scheduled to be held in March.

Courts in the United States generally are unsympathetic to issues surrounding workplace abuse and unfair dismissal,  especially when compared to courts in many other industrialized societies.  Last summer, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to certify a class action involving 1.5 million workers at Walmart who allege sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. The Court’s ruling will have an enormous  impact upon the ability of workers to secure fair treatment in the workplace.

Unfortunately, most non-union workers are clueless about how few  protections they really have until  they are escorted from the building with their possessions in a cardboard box.  Televising the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court is important to the goal of having an informed and educated public. Or is that what the Court is afraid of?

Political Environment Anti-Union

A new report by Center for Economics and Policy Research (CEPR) has concluded that union membership in the United States is at an all-time low because of the “broad national political environment” and not, as some have theorized, because of globalization and technological changes.

One reason that so many American workers are vulnerable to bullying, harassment, and unfair termination is the low rate of unionization in the United States.

There is no law in the United States against workplace bullying and non-unionized workers are the mercy of a judicially created rule of law called the Employment at Will rule, which means they can be fired for any reason – even a bad one – as long as it does not violate a collective bargaining agreement, the law, or a recognized public policy.

Whatever one thinks of unions, there can be no denying that unions mean clout for workers.  Unions represent workers at the bargaining table, and they defend workers in grievance proceedings. Unions historically have led the way toward improving working conditions for all workers.

“In half of the rich countries we studied, the share of the workforce covered by a collective bargaining agreement has remained constant or even increased since 1980 –despite being exposed to the same kinds of pressures from globalization and technology that we experienced here in the United States,” said John Schmitt, a senior economist for the CEPR in Washington, D.C.

In a, 11/17/11 report entitled Politics Matter: Changes in Unionization Rates in Rich Countries, 1960-2010, Schmitt and co-author Alexandra Mitukiewicz review unionization data covering the last five decades for 21 rich economies.

The report demonstrates that national politics are a major determinant of national unionization rates in recent decades, more important than globalization and the new economy.

The researchers found that  countries typically identified with social democratic parties – Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland – generally saw small increases in union coverage and only small decreases in union membership since 1980. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other liberal market economies with less protective labor-market systems have generally experienced sharp drops in union coverage and membership. Countries referred to as continental market economies, including Germany and France, saw small drops in union coverage and moderate declines in union membership.

Of course, this probably comes as no surprise to public sector workers who are fighting to retain union bargaining rights, or to unions battling to keep American companies from relocating overseas or to states that are hostile to unions.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the union membership rate in the United States -the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union–was 11.9 percent in 2010, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per- cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

What about Walmart?

Note: Gillane was sentenced to 96 years in prison on 12/14/11.

A jury this week found John Gillane, 46, the Walmart employee who shot and wounded three of his supervisors last year, guilty of seven felony counts, including two counts of attempted murder with a deadly weapon.

But what about Walmart? Does this incident say anything about the employment practices of America’s largest retail chain? Or was it just a fluke involving an unstable employee?

A nine-year Wal-Mart employee, Gillane told police that Walmart was opening a new store that was causing a cut-back in employee hours and his medical insurance costs had increased. He said he believed one of the supervisors he shot, Eric Hill, gave him a bad evaluation and thought it wasn’t fair because Hill didn’t know him well.

According to the Reno Gazette Journal, Gillane told police he was tired of being mistreated and wanted to “get even and embarrass Walmart.”

Interestingly, after the October 29, 2010 shooting, the victims reportedly said Gillane was well liked, had no work issues, and they were unaware that he disliked them.  The three have recovered from their physical injuries but testified they still feel pain and emotional distress from the incident.

In a taped interview with police, Gillane said he decided the night before that he was going to confront the managers. “Was I disgruntled? —- yeah, I was disgruntled. I was going to take on Goliath,” he said.

He went to Walmart at 7:15 a.m. with two guns and purchased a box of ammo. He hid in a bathroom stall and loaded a gun and waited.

Gillane said he went to the office of manager Richard Sanders, passing several employees whom he did not shoot. He said he displayed the gun and told  Sanders to call the other managers into Sander’s office. He planned to tell them to call  the corporate level at Walmart Stores Inc.  so he could “go over all this stuff, how they’re crapping on us. I knew I was going to get fired. Then everything went wrong.”

Gillane said he panicked when Sanders bolted.

Prosecutors portrayed Gillane as a ticking time bomb who was frustrated with life and intended to kill the supervisors and go out in a “blaze of glory.”

Clearly, Gillane’s problems were much larger than the superstore. He was broke, had recently been evicted, and was upset that two wives had left him for other women, and he rarely got to see his 5-year-old daughter. Gillane had threatened to commit suicide two weeks prior to the incident.

Gillane was also convicted of three counts of battery with a deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm, assault with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed weapon.  After deliberating more than seven hours, jurors failed to reach a decision on whether he intended to kill the first manager he shot, Sanders, whom he reportedly hated the most.

There is a long history in the United States of disgruntled employees taking up arms and shooting supervisors and co-workers.  A series of shootings by postal employees in the 1980s led to the term, “Going postal.”

In a 2000 report, a commission empaneled to investigate violence at the post office recommended that  USPS management, unions, and management associations overhaul the dispute resolution processes, which was a significant source of frustration and tension for employees and managers, and boost pay for non-management personnel.

Wal-Mart employs about one percent of the U.S. population and earns profits of more than $15 billion a year. The New York Times has reported that starting in 2012 all future part-time Wal-Mart employees who work less than 24 hours a week on average will no longer qualify for health insurance plans, and Wal-Mart is cutting its contributions to employees’ health savings accounts by 50 percent. Premiums for Wal-Mart employees are expected to increase from 17 to 61 percent.

A few years ago, Walmart expanded coverage for employees and their families after facing criticism that many of its 1.4 million U.S. workers could not afford or did not qualify for coverage — rendering  them eligible for Medicaid.