4 Takeaways for Business Owners from the NY Workplace Shooting

Another horrific workplace violence incident. Here’s 4 things business owners should learn from the workplace violence incident at the Midtown Manhattan office building.

What Happened

Shane Tamura, a 27-year-old man, drove all of the way from Nevada to Midtown Manhattan, double parked his car outside the building that houses the corporate offices of the National Football League, and while holding a semi-automatic long gun by his side, casually walked into the lobby of the building where he shot a police officer, a security guard, and a woman working for a major financial advisory service known for her mentoring of other women in her industry, and for her community involvement.

But he wasn’t finished with his carnage.

Tamura then took an elevator up to the floor where the building’s property owner had its offices, and gunned down a young woman, with a promising future.

It’s believed that he intended to take the elevator to the NFL’s offices, but got off at the wrong floor.

Tamura then killed himself by shooting himself in the chest. Likely doing so to preserve his brain as in a suicide note that he wrote, Tamura called for his brain to be examined at autopsy for CTE. CTE is caused by physical trauma to the head, and is often associated with contact sports like football. It can only be confirmed by autopsy. Tamura believed that he had developed CTE from his years of playing football, which he started at the age of 6. He began experiencing debilitating headaches while still playing football while still in high school.

Indications are that Tamura blamed the NFL for developing, even though he did not play beyond high school.

Grievance Driven Community Sourced Workplace Violence Is Becoming More Common

Over the last several years, we’ve been hearing more and more about workplace violence incidents that are committed by members of the public, which are driven by grievance and anger.

The carefully carried out execution of the CEO of United Healthcare is perhaps the most high profile of those types of workplace violence incidents. But it’s far from the only one.

Those carrying out these types of attacks are motivated to do so out of anger at the business or the industry the business is in. Rather than target employees as other community based workplace violence does, these grievance filled attackers target the owners, and officers of the business. However, employees wounded or killed are treated as collateral damage.

The real or imagined grievances driving these attacks can be based upon the types of work the businesses do, who the businesses serve, and for the manner in which the businesses operate.

Grievance driven community sourced workplace violence isn’t new. But, the increasing levels at which it is occurring is something we’ve not seen before. 

The grievance driven violence attacker sometimes communicates, as a warning, his anger towards the business before engaging in violence. Other times, grievance based attacks happen without no prior warning. And those are the hardest to prevent.

Physical Security Alone Doesn’t Prevent Attacks

The Midtown Manhattan building where the attack occurred had enacted a robust approach to physical security. Yet, that didn’t stop the attack.

Security guards, police officers, video cameras, restricted ingress and egress points, metal detectors, and other approaches that are supposed to “harden the target” are not enough to prevent violence. Hardening the target is not the panacea for preventing workplace violence that it’s been held out to be.

It became the go to concept for safety because installing bullet proof glass, and security cameras helped reduced the number of convenience store shootings during the 1980s and 1990s.

But workplace violence prevention, in order to be effective, must address the specific types of safety hazards faced. And those types of incidents involved armed robberies, which were often committed at the spur of the moment with little to no prior planning.

But for most types of businesses, the workplace violence safety hazards their employees face, are different. And as a result, physical security barriers are not as effective at preventing violence related to those types of safety hazards.

Hardening the target did not prevent the school shootings in either Uvalde, Texas or in Parkland, Florida. Both of which were committed by former students who knew the layout of the school, and planned their attacks to get around the physical security that had been installed.

When it comes to grievance driven workplace violence, it’s best to remember that where there’s a will, there’s a way. 

A grievance driven person intent on committing violence will find a way to get to his target. They plan their attacks methodically. And that includes identifying different ways to gain access, such as at a business owner’s home, or out in the community.

It’s why your workplace violence prevention program, and your physical safety processes for business owners, need to be about much more than premises security. They must include training people to quickly recognize safety hazards, so that they can be avoided before they become a physical safety threat, and training to ensure that employees understand and implement strategies to avoid physical harm from violence.

In fact, California’s workplace violence prevention law requires that employers provide training in strategies to avoid physical harm from violence. 

California’s Workplace Violence Prevention Law Is Now Under the Microscope

Following the violence incident in Midtown Manhattan, there were public calls for more states to adopt workplace violence prevention laws similar to the law that California has enacted, which went into effect on July 1, 2024.

Because it’s the first law of its kind in the country, California’s law will be under the microscope as other states look to see how effective it has been at preventing workplace violence. 

That will mean scrutiny over how California has rolled out and enforced the law, and whether the law has been effective at reducing the number of workplace violence incidents. 

And that presents some issues for California. 

Cal/OSHA, the agency responsible for enforcing the law, is severely understaffed. By some estimates up to 30% short of the necessary positions needed to enforce the law. 

Further, although the law requires business owners to have already implemented its requirements, most business owners who are covered by the law, don’t even know that the law exists. 

How effective can a law be when business owners don’t know that they’re required to enact its requirements? Not very.

And lastly, because of misinformation, many businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees, and are aware of the law, mistakenly believe that the law does not apply to their business and employees. 

According to the law, it’s not the number of employees you have but whether or not your employees engage with the public that determines if they’re covered by the law. It’s simple. If they do, he law applies to them, and  you must train them in all that the law requires.

Workplace Violence Would Happen Less if More Businesses Made Safety a Priority 

There are approximately 2,000,000 reported incidents of workplace violence each year in the US. But, nationally, 40% of businesses have no workplace violence prevention plan, and do not provide their employees with workplace violence prevention training.

Each year, the US EEOC receives 10,000 reported incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace.

While these figures represent significant underreporting of the actual number of both types of incidents, around 75% of employers provide sexual harassment training and over 80% prohibit sexual harassment by a written policy. 

So why are business owners not creating workplace violence prevention plans and providing their employees with training in violence prevention, when most of them do provide training in sexual harassment despite its lower reported incidents numbers?

On one level that might have to do with litigation. 

There are private causes of action that a victim of sexual harassment can bring against her employer. But in many, places, California included, workplace violence falls under worker’s compensation. And some employers are less concerned about facing a workers comp claim than they are a regular civil lawsuit.

But there’s more to it than that.

Many employers don’t take workplace violence prevention as seriously as they should because they lack an understanding of how workplace violence actually happens. It’s not something that’s intentional. 

But, because they don’t understand how violence occurs, they mistakenly believe that their employees won’t be subjected to workplace violence. So why spend money on something that’s not a problem?

But that’s misguided. And caused by business owners believing that workplace violence is caused by current and former employees.

They are simply unaware that there are 3 other source types of workplace violence. And those other sources account for far more incidents than do those incidents caused by current or former employees, which represent only about 25% of all incidents. 

The other 3 source types of workplace violence, violence committed by members of the public, by customers, clients, patients, vendors, and other “invitees”, who are served by, or provide services to a business, and employees’ personal connections, including current and former intimate partners, together account for 75% of all workplace violence incidents.

Learn about my workplace violence prevention services and how they can help you keep your employees safer, protect your business’s bottom line, and comply with California law.

Business owners are being targeted by grievance filled members of the public. Learn about my one day business owner VIP 1:1 and one day business owner small group intensive safety trainings where you’ll learn exactly what you need to stay safe and protect yourself from violence.