Employment laws in the United States are skewed extremely for the benefit of employers. Workplace violence is a prime example. Consider two examples about violence in the workplace

Take the convenience store clerk working overnight in a store that has been robbed before. There are risking their job by refusing to work at an unsafe job. In most places, there is no requirement for protective barriers. In most states, they can’t collect workers’ compensation for mental trauma without a physical injury.  In most states, their sole remedy for injuries from workplace violence is workers compensation, which may provide very limited compensation.

An employee who may be under stress and/or suffering from mental illness may make an off-hand remark or unserious remark about violence. That person can be fired for largely without repercussions in the name of safety.

So in many respects, the threat of violence, even if vague or taken out of context. in the workplace is taken more seriously than actual violence. It’s easy to square this seeming contradiction when you realize employment laws in this country are written to benefit employers. The concept of employment at-will, created by a legal academics in the mid-to-late 19th century, and implemented by judges is the root cause of the imbalance of labor-management relations in this country.

So what can be done to protect employees from actual workplace violence, aside from outright abolishing employment at-will?

OSHA standard on convenience stores

I think OSHA should implement nationwide safety standards for convenience stores. OSHA has been pondering this idea since the 1990s. I know from my informal discussions with local OSHA staff, that this idea is popular with OSHA staff. A rule would improve safety in convenience stores.

I also think a formal rule from OSHA would make any retaliation case stronger under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1114. I believe that the OSHA general duty clause would give convenience store workers a way to bring a retaliation claim for reporting unsafe working conditions. But management often argues that vague references to OSHA regulations don’t comprise a protected activity. An OSHA rule would give convenience store and other retail workers a clear legal leg to stand on when reporting workplace violence.

Pass the PRO Act

The vast majority of the time, a union contract provides more on-the-job protections than any government regulation or anti-discrimination law. The House recently passed the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act, that it would make it easier to organize unions. This would be a boon for workplace safety for all workers.

The same troll army of freelance writers, literal neo-liberal shills, who whined about AB5 in California are now attacking the PRO Act. I support the PRO Act. My only concern about the PRO Act is that it gets used by Uber, Lyft, Door Dash, et al. to implement half-a— “portable benefits” schemes under the guise so-called “sectoral bargaining.”