Differences

between the two alternative

policies on workplace decency

Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, 2007

STOP! Before reading further, make sure you have completed Steps One and Two of the exercise that this webpage is part of. Otherwise you will forfeit much of the self-education the exercise promises, and the table below will not make much sense anyway.

Have you made your list of differences? Are you ready for Step Three? If so, compare your list with the twenty items on the list below. How many of the points on your list are essentially the same as those shown here? How many differences did you miss? Were they important ones? Did you identify differences that are not on the list below?

The issue here is not which policy, on balance, is better. Working out your own answer to this question, or designing a hybrid policy better than either of these alternatives, comes later, as Step Four of this exercise. The task here is just to identify objective differences, so that no matter what conclusion you come to at the end, it will be reasoned and well-informed.

I should point out that the difference between these policies is not that Policy A favours workers while Policy B favours management. At the workshop in Toronto, participants were not divided along labour-management lines in which alternative they preferred. Some union reps liked A, others B, and the same for the management reps.

Differences between Policy Alternatives A and B

Toward establishing a routine procedure for dealing with accusations of bullying and related offenses

Broad; bullying and mobbing treated as synonyms, along with moral harassment and emotional abuse

Employee health and safety; no other ill effects are mentioned

Subordinates or peers; no mention of managers as possible targets

No; anything hostile, negative, unwanted, unwelcome, demeaning, anything "felt to be insulting" may be grounds for a complaint under the policy

A list of 12 symptoms of distress; the policy assumes that these symptoms, which may have any number of explanations, are the result of ill -treatment at work

Very important; the policy is about behaviour that “is intended to harm or control”

Mainly subjective: policy is about conduct "if the relevant action, toleration or omission is subjectively felt to be insulting"

No; the policy encourages name-calling, but prefers "difficult person" or "sociopathic bully" to "emotion-laden terms like jerk or asshole

No; the policy appears to assume that one party bullies and the other is bullied; no mention that the table may sometimes be turned

The victim (11 times)

Yes; "workplace bullying is hereby designated an offense for which there is zero tolerance"

Very much so; the policy cites legislation, provides for written allegation, establishes internal adjudication by single investigator or tribunal, provides for discipline

Clearly so; by its language, the “identified bully” is assumed guilty from the start; no mention of the investigator possibly finding the accused party innocent, but only of "making specific recommendations for how to stop the bullying"; only the accuser, not the accused, is entitled to be accompanied by a support person

This possibility is not mentioned; the policy assumes that the accused is in fact a bully; "whether or not discipline is imposed on the bully, the report of the investigator(s) shall be retained in his/her file for five years, to establish a record in case of subsequent offenses"

Relatively bureaucratic; an "Official Bullying Report Form" must be filled out, the employer must act on it within seven working days, investigator(s) must report within 20 working days

A lot; on the basis of the investigator's report, the employer may require an oral or written apology, and may even send the accused employee for psychiatric examination; unionized employees can file grievances

Ridding the workplace of offensive conduct is regarded as the employer's (that is, management's) responsibility, part of its duty of care

No; there is no mention of what employees are supposed to be accomplishing through their work

Yes; after the accuser has submitted the Official Bullying Report Form, triggering all the rigamarole of a formal investigation and report, the outcome is still subject to grievance arbitration if a collective agreement is in place; the parties would then have to go through a stressful rehearing of the case

Step Four: Draw Your Own Conclusions

If the first three steps of this exercise have served their purpose, your thinking about anti-bullying or workplace-decency policies has reached a higher level of complexity and sophistication. You know now, even better than before, that writing such a policy is not to be done lightly and quickly in an afternoon. Every word and sentence needs to be thought about, debated and discussed. The objective is a policy that will make things better, not worse.

My main purpose here has not been to argue for Policy A or Policy B, but to make your own choice a more enlightened one. Any policy, once enacted, becomes a resource employees at whatever level can point to, call upon, cite, quote, and use for their respective purposes. A poorly crafted policy, however well-intentioned, is easily used as a weapon in employees' fights with one another; it can get more people involved in the fight, make it last longer, cause more hard feelings, and waste more time than if the policy had never been made. A well crafted policy, on the other hand, is a handy first-aid kit for healing wounds and preventing infection from setting in.

My further purpose here, as must be obvious by now, is to raise doubts about Alternative A, an extreme version of the most common type of anti-bullying policy. I know of no actual anti-bullying policy that is quite this bad, in terms of sloppiness of logic and definition, lack of due process, and presumption of guilt of the accused. In my view, an institution would be better off with no policy at all than with this one.

You, however, may have a different view, and I grant that if administered by an authoritarian management, Alternative B could appropriately be seen as lacking teeth. Even or especially in such a circumstance, I would prefer that Alternative B govern my workplace than Alternative A. A kangaroo court is worse than none at all.

To complete this exercise, write down your own conclusions, and take whatever action you think best. Good luck!