Workplace vs. Sexual Harassment

“Organizational leaders pay millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements to complainants due to interpersonal workplace incidents each year (Johnson & Indvik, 1999; Meglich, 2008). The Department of Labor Women’s Bureau (DLWB) statistics from 2004 indicated that women comprise 47% of the workforce. Yet, more than 70% of organizations do not have a policy addressing domestic violence in the workplace (BLS, 2006; Katula, 2006; Keashly & Harvey, 2006; Johnson & Indvik, 1999; Meyer, 2004; Moe & Bell, 2004; Riger et al., 2004; Swanberg et al., 2005).” (Smith, 7)

“Interpersonal workplace harassment. Research on interpersonal workplace harassment is relatively new (Meglich, 2008). Meglich’s (2008) study was germinal to this study. Interpersonal workplace harassment is a form of interpersonal counterproductive workplace behavior between members in the organization (Lewis, Coursol, & Wahl, 2002; Meglich, 2008). Interpersonal workplace harassment can be personal, social, task, or work performance based (Meglich, 2008). Some employees who were victims of interpersonal workplace harassment from supervisors and peers have resigned or got fired from their jobs (Meglich, 2008). This study was an exploration of the opinions of employed women regarding workplace harassment and interpersonal workplace harassment.” (Smith 13)

“Definitions Disclosure is revealing of information that was previously kept secret (Encarta-Webster, 2005) such as disclosure of workplace harassment from male partners to employers (HallHaynes, 2003). Hope is the determination and motivation to accomplish something, and having a viable plan to accomplish the task (Chronister, Linville, & Palmer, 2008; Norman, Luthans, & Luthans, 2005). Interpersonal workplace harassment is leadership and co-workers responses from supervisors, co-workers, or a group of co-workers that represents purposeful, ongoing negative behaviors directed at specific employees in the workplace (Meglich, 2008). Male partner is an intimate or previously intimate individual (Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Trauma is any workplace event that involves an individual being exposed to an incident in which injury or death is possible and feelings of terror and hopelessness are evoked (Strauser, Lustig, Cogdal, & Uruk, 2006, Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Workplace harassment is employment hindrance tactics male partners use such as physical, verbal, emotional, economic actions, or threats of actions that influence women at home or in the workplace (Hall-Haynes, 2003; Office of Violence Against Women [OVAW], 2007). Assumptions Several assumptions exist for this study. The first assumption was respondents will answer the questions on the pre-existing survey instruments truthfully. Self-reporting as a research practice is widely used and generally accepted (Malhotra, 2004; Swanberg et al., 2006). The second assumption was results of this study were applicable to other large population 15 counties and cities in the United States. Harris County, Texas has a population over two million people and is comparable to large counties and cities across the United States. Harris County, Texas is the fourth largest county in the United States population size.” (Smith 14-15)

Workplace harassment. In the 1800s, United States government officials, magistrates, and organizational leaders considered domestic violence a private issue between a husband and his wife (Hall-Haynes, 2003). Because of the women’s rights movement in the 1920s and 1970s, some government entities recognized domestic violence as a social issue (Hall-Haynes, 2003). In the 1980s, economic challenges facing the United States convinced legislators to implement welfare reform acts in the 1990s (Nam, 2005). Converting welfare recipients into paid workers has been an ongoing legislative initiative since the late 1960s. 

The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in the Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 was one of the major legislative initiatives for transitioning welfare recipients to work (Nam, 2005). The JOBS program affected only a small percentage of welfare-reliant women during budget constraints in the early 1990s (Nam, 2005). Before 1996, unemployed mothers could support themselves and take care of their children under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program (Brandon & Hogan, 2004). Political pressure from United States citizens to reform welfare programs, including the AFDC, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was enacted in 1996 (Brandon & Hogan, 2004). 

One intention of the writers of PRWORA were to discourage long-term welfare dependency on the federal, state, and local governments by encouraging self-sufficiency, which they identified as financial independence from a welfare state through job assistance programs and employment. Another intention of the writers of PRWORA was to promote marriage (Nam, 2005). The writers believed working families with a joint income are less likely to become welfare recipients. Nam (2005) concluded in his research study of PRWORA the promotion of marriage was negligible (2%, N= 713) and the “result was consistent with previous studies showing the marriage promotion provisions of PRWORA have not been successful” (p. 282). 

Similar studies conducted by Bitler, Gelbach, Williamson-Hoynes, and Zavodny (2004) and Fitzgerald and Ribar (2004) confirmed Nam’s (2005) findings. In order to receive PRWORA benefits, recipients must work or engage in a work-related activity for a minimum of 30 hours a week (Fitzgerald & Ribar, 2004). Qualified recipients could initially receive PRWORA benefits for the maximum of 5 years in their lifetime (Bitler et al., 2004). Although federal government officials composed the basic policy structure and implementation of this act, state legislators retained flexibility over the content of the welfare program, and many state legislators incorporated welfare to work training programs (Nam, 2005). 

Before the passage of PRWORA, several factors indicated why women became long term welfare recipients. Some women suffered from poor physical health (Brandon & Hogan, 2004), some women lacked transportation, and some women experienced posttraumatic stress syndrome (Gorde, Helfrich, & Finlayson, 2004; Woods, 2005). Women’s partners served as barriers to work participation (Neuman & Fawcett, 2002; Tolman & Wang, 2005) and economic advancement (Chronister, 2007). Some women stayed on welfare because they could not find a job that paid more than welfare (Lee & Vinokur, 2007). After passage and implementation of PRWORA, welfare benefit recipients receiving cash assistance dropped 54% from 4.4 million to 2.1 million by 2003 (Dawson & Huntington, 2004). Many unemployed women had to find employment because welfare assistance was no longer an option (Bassuk, Lown, Schmidt, & Wiley, 2006; Cherlin, Burton, Hurt, & Purvin, 2004; Purvin, 2007). After researching welfare reform, Nam (2005) concluded, “segment of welfare recipients, probably the most disadvantaged group left (or were forced to leave) welfare without having the proper means to live” (p. 288). After passage of PRWORA act of 1996, more women went to work. Domestic violence from male partners spilled over into the workplace (Campbell & Manganello, 2006; Johnson & Indvik, 1999). Advocates against domestic violence helped to increase awareness in communities across the United States and were influential in implementing policies designed to eradicate domestic violence in the workplace (Farmer & Tiefenthaler, 2003). One established principle proven to reduce the effects of domestic violence is gaining independence through financial assistance from employers and government sources (Allen, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2004; Chronister & McWhirter, 2006; Moe & Bell, 2004). Women with children who could not find work within the 5-year unemployment benefits period needed additional financial assistance. Legislators responded by passing the Family Violence Option Act (FVOA). Legislators made FVOA part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF) of 2003 (Lindhorst, Oxford, & Gillmore, 2007). Under TANF, caseworkers could provide women waivers on a case-by-case basis (good cause or grant) to allow them to receive temporary assistance longer than the specified timeframe if they met certain requirements (Lindhorst, Oxford, & Gillmore, 2007). By 2002, 25% of TANF recipients were participating in the labor market compared to 7% in 1992 (Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2004). Interpersonal workplace harassment. Although abusive behavior such as harassment have been in society for many years, there is increased interest in how these behaviors impact the workplace especially between supervisors and peers (Hunter & Bandow, 2009). In the 1960s, interpersonal workplace harassment incidents between supervisors and peers occurred in every organization throughout the United States (Lewis, Coursol, & Wahl, 2002). Some supervisors and peers negative responses and behavior toward certain employees in organizations caused some of those employees to lose their jobs (Meglich, 2008). Interpersonal workplace harassment incidents such as sexual harassment, intimidation and workplace violence were underreported because of fear or retaliation and no laws were in place to protect the employee (Meglich, 2008; Hunter & Bandow, 2009). Legislators responded by passing the Civil Right Act of 1964, this federal law afforded legal protection to employees that were victims of interpersonal workplace harassment and discrimination (Lewis, Coursol, & Wahl, 2002). In the 1990s, interpersonal workplace harassment from supervisors and peers received national media coverage from workplace violent acts committed by some disgruntled postal worker employees nationwide (Hunter & Bandow, 2009). Legislators passed several workplace violence acts and organizational leaders nationwide implemented policies against workplace violence (Katula, 2006). Current Findings Workplace harassment. Employment and welfare-to-work training programs created a level of independence from harassers (Moe & Bell, 2004). Any level of independence counters the goal of harassers, which is to establish power and control in their relationships with their victims (Moe & Bell, 2004). In effort to regain control in relationships, harassers sometimes increase psychological and physical violence against their victims in order to break down resistance barriers (Koziol-Mclain et al., 2006; Neuman & Fawcett, 2002). An important factor affecting women’s ability to work is how much support they receive from their male partners regarding their employment (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Monahan-Lang, 2005; Wettersten et al., 2004). In an exploratory study of employed women, Wettersten et al. found 60% of the women received mixed messages about their employment from their male partners. Mixed messages concerning employment were contingent on the harasser’s need of the victim’s monetary support to ensure household survival and the implementation of control measures designed to maintain power in their relationship (Wettersten et al., 2004). Male partners often use tactics to interfere with the victim’s job. Harassers use control tactics to keep their victims dependent upon them, especially women with children (Riger & Staggs, 2004a; Swanberg et al., 2005). Although women may view work as a haven from their male partner, the level of independence and separation from the male partner that employment brings could also be a source of conflict (Logan & Walker, 2004; Wettersten et al., 2004). The male partner may implement various workplace harassment tactics designed to maintain control of the relationship while the victim is at work, intentionally keeping the victim’s attention on the harasser (Brown et al., 2006). Wettersten et al. (2004) found 70% of the women surveyed received harassing phone calls or their harassers made personal appearances at work. As a result, 70% of the women had difficulty concentrating at work, 50% missed days at work, and 60% of the women lost their jobs (Wettersten et al., 2004). Other studies differ from Wettersten et al. in percentages on the types of workplace harassment experienced by women from male partners. Not allowing the victim to perform job functions or making harassing phone calls ranged from 8% to 75% (Brush, 2003; Taylor & Barush, 2004). Variances in percentages of workplace harassment could be due to the victim’s responses to the questions during the research or the questions themselves (Hamby, Sugarman, & Boney-McCoy, 2006; Killas, Simonin, & De Puy, 2005; Romano, 2004). (Smith 21-25)