I suspected, and it was affirmed, that the purpose of this article was to point to guns as the source of most workplace deaths.
Note that the most recent shooting of workers was at the Youtube facility in the San Francisco area, where NO workers died, but the mentally unstable trespasser, ‘dissatisfied customer’, non-employee, shot herself. That is NOT a workplace fatality involving a worker, but it is an incident of someone dying of a gunshot wound at a place of work. So, the authors strayed off their topic to indirectly argue for gun control.
Note also that the strongest correlation of violent workplace deaths is with employees or ex-employees, not guns. That is one aspect that will be willingly or ignorantly overlooked by people with an anti-gun agenda.
There were no great surprises in the stats provided by the authors, and they give an interesting and enlightening variety of subdivisions of the overall fatality stats.
While 500 homicides at workplaces is a travesty, it only represents 10% of all worker fatalities. We who deal with WC and insurance company management should also focus our attention on the other 4500 fatalities, to reduce the larger sources of those fatalities, to the extent possible.
Polar…. The purpose of the article, as stated in its headline, is to point out that 10% of all workplace fatalities are due to homicides. Since shootings accounted for 79 percent of those, the article looks a bit more closely at shootings. That’s it. The article does not mention gun control. Take the news however you want but please don’t pin your “suspicious mind” motives on others. And FYI, the article was triggered by workplace data released by the Trump Administration.
The article did stray off topic when mentioning the Youtube shooter. There was no actual workplace homicide in that incident so it veer off the point a little.
Homicides account for 10% of workplace deaths. Nothing more for me to say in regard to the 79% of the 10% = 8% overall as a part of all workplace deaths.
Considering the fact that workplace deaths are a small percentage of the workforce, the 10% is even smaller. The 500 homicide cause deaths is 10% of ALL worker fatalities. There are over 100 million workers in the USA.
So, that (500) isn’t too large a number to analyze to see that the CAUSE is mainly disgruntled workers who may also be estranged spouses or currently/ previously romantically involved with the murdered worker. Methods to reduce this problem are straightforward; tighten security at places of work (and schools, stadiums, shopping malls, movie theaters, places of worship, etc) and monitor more closely any current or former workers who have filed for separation or divorce, or who show signs of aggression or violent behavior towards other workers or other people.
The article focuses on worker deaths, but the above analysis of the main causes can be applied to all types of worker interactions that cause distress, harm/injury, or property damage to the employer’s premises.
In another article you said “we need to press local politicians to arm security guards in EVERY school, and require the same of places of worship, malls, movie theaters, ballparks, stadiums, etc” and here you’ve said we need to “tighten security at places of work (and schools, stadiums, shopping malls, movie theaters, places of worship.”
by stating these points, you are implying a similar need for additional security at places other than schools and workplaces is necessary because those other places are similarly unsafe as schools and workplaces. i shall ask you again…
can you support your argument by citing facts which prove there are an equal (or close to equal) number of shootings at those additional locations you mentioned, compared to shootings at schools & workplaces?
can you support your argument with data that stadiums, shopping malls and theaters have similarly high rates of shootings as schools and workplaces do, thereby necessitating the need to actually tighten security at those other locations you mentioned?
confused,
I find it odd Yogi is talking scare tactics to support a police state when, before, he said this about scare tactics:
APRIL 2, 2018 AT 7:46 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Scare tactics didn’t work for Al Gore. Try credible science with uncensored, unaltered data, and set your ‘average status’ after spelling out what makes it so. Then, try to convince everyone like a mature, sensible adult, instead of a fear monger.
I would think one would want to practice what he/she is preaching.
Wrong. Gun control is a fundamentally different issue from Climate Warming.
I’m not talking scare tactics; I suggest/ support use of armed security guards where many people gather who may become targets because of gun free zones or other restrictions on firearms for self defense.
April 10, 2018 at 8:55 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Yogi wrote, “where many people gather who may become targets because of gun free zones or other restrictions on firearms for self defense.”
Yeah, like I said, scare tactics to support a police state. What’s that Agent says about word parsing?
MARCH 29, 2018 AT 1:25 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Nice word parse and nice try.
April 9, 2018 at 9:06 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
@confused:
Your presumption of me implying the locations I listed are SIMILARLY dangerous is wrong. There is no need for places where people are at risk of violence to be equally or similarly dangerous to require security against violence by patron, visitors, employees, etc. You are creating reasons to criticize my suggestion to arm security guards at places where people assemble. I won’t follow your asinine lead down another rabbit hole. If you believed I would, you are …. confused.
okay – you’re not saying you want armed guards there because those areas are similarly dangerous….you just want armed guards where people are “at risk of violence”
So, where does it stop? Do we put armed guards in airport parking lots? Do we put them near abortion clinics? Do we put them at rest areas or at halfway homes? There’s a few dangerous blocks near where I live and there’s a playground there….will armed guards be there.
Listen – you don’t need to respond to every single location that applies, and I’m not saying you’re wrong arguing we need armed guards at other places, but what is your criteria is for “at risk of violence” so we know what exactly you’re arguing for and how pervasive armed guards will be across our country.
April 9, 2018 at 3:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
10
Wowed, obviously you didn’t think before posting. Read Polar’s response carefully and you will see that this is not a big issue in America. By the way, with many more people employed now, people are overall happier than the prior 8 years. Many of these deaths are disputes in families and they go to the spouses work to do their killing.
do you have any raw data to support your argument on how happy people are or the actual types of disputes leading to workplace deaths or are you just speculating?
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them.
April 10, 2018 at 8:38 am
David says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Are you seriously going to lump in the terrorist attack by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik with other “workplace shootings”?
For starters, that took place in 2015, and your article is about 2016 numbers…
Or did you just need another shooting for your list?
Well, at least the “postal” shootings from the 80’s stopped, right
“90% of Workplace Deaths Due to Accidents”
(Kind of boring. Let me fix it.)
“90% of Workplace Deaths Have Nothing to Do with Family Disputes”
(Still no good. One More Try.)
“Hey Gun Haters!”
(Now that will get them reading!)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar…. The purpose of the article, as stated in its headline, is to point out that 10% of all workplace fatalities are due to homicides. Since shootings accounted for 79 percent of those, the article looks a bit more closely at shootings. That’s it. The article does not mention gun control. Take the news however you want but please don’t pin your “suspicious mind” motives on others. And FYI, the article was triggered by workplace data released by the Trump Administration.
The article did stray off topic when mentioning the Youtube shooter. There was no actual workplace homicide in that incident so it veer off the point a little.
Homicides account for 10% of workplace deaths. Nothing more for me to say in regard to the 79% of the 10% = 8% overall as a part of all workplace deaths.
This could be my favorite comment of all time. Way to go Andrew!
One in ten of us who die on the job will have been murdered. That sounds pretty high to me. That’s a crazy percentage.
Considering the fact that workplace deaths are a small percentage of the workforce, the 10% is even smaller. The 500 homicide cause deaths is 10% of ALL worker fatalities. There are over 100 million workers in the USA.
So, that (500) isn’t too large a number to analyze to see that the CAUSE is mainly disgruntled workers who may also be estranged spouses or currently/ previously romantically involved with the murdered worker. Methods to reduce this problem are straightforward; tighten security at places of work (and schools, stadiums, shopping malls, movie theaters, places of worship, etc) and monitor more closely any current or former workers who have filed for separation or divorce, or who show signs of aggression or violent behavior towards other workers or other people.
The article focuses on worker deaths, but the above analysis of the main causes can be applied to all types of worker interactions that cause distress, harm/injury, or property damage to the employer’s premises.
In another article you said “we need to press local politicians to arm security guards in EVERY school, and require the same of places of worship, malls, movie theaters, ballparks, stadiums, etc” and here you’ve said we need to “tighten security at places of work (and schools, stadiums, shopping malls, movie theaters, places of worship.”
by stating these points, you are implying a similar need for additional security at places other than schools and workplaces is necessary because those other places are similarly unsafe as schools and workplaces. i shall ask you again…
can you support your argument by citing facts which prove there are an equal (or close to equal) number of shootings at those additional locations you mentioned, compared to shootings at schools & workplaces?
can you support your argument with data that stadiums, shopping malls and theaters have similarly high rates of shootings as schools and workplaces do, thereby necessitating the need to actually tighten security at those other locations you mentioned?
use whatever time frame you wish. the other post you made that i referenced happened here: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/04/03/485082.htm?comments
confused,
I find it odd Yogi is talking scare tactics to support a police state when, before, he said this about scare tactics:
APRIL 2, 2018 AT 7:46 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Scare tactics didn’t work for Al Gore. Try credible science with uncensored, unaltered data, and set your ‘average status’ after spelling out what makes it so. Then, try to convince everyone like a mature, sensible adult, instead of a fear monger.
I would think one would want to practice what he/she is preaching.
Wrong. Gun control is a fundamentally different issue from Climate Warming.
I’m not talking scare tactics; I suggest/ support use of armed security guards where many people gather who may become targets because of gun free zones or other restrictions on firearms for self defense.
Yogi wrote, “where many people gather who may become targets because of gun free zones or other restrictions on firearms for self defense.”
Yeah, like I said, scare tactics to support a police state. What’s that Agent says about word parsing?
MARCH 29, 2018 AT 1:25 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Nice word parse and nice try.
@confused:
Your presumption of me implying the locations I listed are SIMILARLY dangerous is wrong. There is no need for places where people are at risk of violence to be equally or similarly dangerous to require security against violence by patron, visitors, employees, etc. You are creating reasons to criticize my suggestion to arm security guards at places where people assemble. I won’t follow your asinine lead down another rabbit hole. If you believed I would, you are …. confused.
okay – you’re not saying you want armed guards there because those areas are similarly dangerous….you just want armed guards where people are “at risk of violence”
So, where does it stop? Do we put armed guards in airport parking lots? Do we put them near abortion clinics? Do we put them at rest areas or at halfway homes? There’s a few dangerous blocks near where I live and there’s a playground there….will armed guards be there.
Listen – you don’t need to respond to every single location that applies, and I’m not saying you’re wrong arguing we need armed guards at other places, but what is your criteria is for “at risk of violence” so we know what exactly you’re arguing for and how pervasive armed guards will be across our country.
Wowed, obviously you didn’t think before posting. Read Polar’s response carefully and you will see that this is not a big issue in America. By the way, with many more people employed now, people are overall happier than the prior 8 years. Many of these deaths are disputes in families and they go to the spouses work to do their killing.
do you have any raw data to support your argument on how happy people are or the actual types of disputes leading to workplace deaths or are you just speculating?
There is a graph at the top.
It shows men are most likely to be murdered by a robber or “other” and women by a relative or spouse.
i saw the graph, but which part specifically applies to his comment — is it the “other” one or the “relative” one, or both?
the graph alone does not support that “Many of these deaths are disputes in families and they go to the spouses work to do their killing.“
• APRIL 5, 2018 AT 3:00 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
7
Way to make light of this. Shows you don’t have a clue what is going on.
Reply
Way to troll with cut-n-‘pastiche’.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them.
Are you seriously going to lump in the terrorist attack by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik with other “workplace shootings”?
For starters, that took place in 2015, and your article is about 2016 numbers…
Or did you just need another shooting for your list?
Well, at least the “postal” shootings from the 80’s stopped, right
Where do Terrorist shootings at workplaces fit into this article? How about the nightclub in Orlando?
Great point…I wonder if they took into account the Vegas casino shooting? That was one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent history.
“90% of Workplace Deaths Due to Accidents”
(Kind of boring. Let me fix it.)
“90% of Workplace Deaths Have Nothing to Do with Family Disputes”
(Still no good. One More Try.)
“Hey Gun Haters!”
(Now that will get them reading!)