The United States

Postal Service Commission

On A Safe And Secure

Workplace

Members

Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chair

Douglas A. Fraser

Beatrix A. Hamburg, M.D.

David A. Hamburg, M.D.

John E. Robson

Robert B. Zoellick

Staff

Naomi Goldstein, Ph.D., Director

Alexis Barist

Sharon Boles, Ph.D.

Rosalind B. Johnson, Ph.D.

Matthew H. Lexcen, MBA

Senior Advisor

William H. Foster, Ph.D.
The National Center

on Addiction and Substance Abuse

at Columbia University

633 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10017

212-841-5200

www.casacolumbia.org
1280 Maryland Avenue, SW

Suite CY65

Washington, DC 20024-2142

Phone 202.484.5818

Fax 202.484.5929

JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, JR.

Chairman

DOUGLAS A. FRASER

BEATRIX A. HAMBURG, M.D.

DAVID A. HAMBURG, M.D.

JOHN E. ROBSON

ROBERT B. ZOELLICK

NAOMI GOLDSTEIN, PH.D.

Director

August 31, 2000

The Honorable William J. Henderson

Postmaster General

United States Postal Service

475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 10022

Washington, DC 20260

Dear Mr. Henderson,

I am pleased to transmit to you the Report of the United States

Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace.

You charged the Commission to develop concrete recommendations

that the Postal Service might adopt to provide its employees at

38,000 post offices and related facilities with the safest

possible workplace environments. In carrying out this mandate

over the past two years, the Commission examined all aspects of

workplace violence and related issues. In order to measure the

situation in postal workplaces against that in others, we

conducted the most comprehensive national survey ever undertaken on the topic of workplace violence. We held interviews

and focus groups with hundreds of postal employees through out

the nation, and analyzed mountains of national and Postal

Service data.

Our bottom line conclusions are:

* "Going postal" is a myth, a bad rap. Postal workers are no

more likely to physically assault, sexually harass, or verbally

abuse their coworkers than employees in the national workforce.

* Postal employees are only a third as likely as those in the

national workforce to be victims of homicide at work.

* The level of violence throughout the American workplace is

unacceptably high: last year, one in twenty workers was

physically assaulted, one in six was sexually harassed, and one

in three was verbally abused.

We hope that this report will help achieve your goal of making

the Postal Service the gold standard for safe and secure

workplaces for all American workers and that it will be of use

to other public and private employers as well.

You and the entire USPS have provided wholehearted cooperation

throughout our work. The Commission would like to extend a

special word of appreciation to our director, Naomi Goldstein,

who assembled an excellent staff and led the work of the

Commission with unusual intelligence and dedication and the

highest professional standards.

Sincerely,

Joseph A. Califano, Jr.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE COMMISSION

ON A SAFE AND SECURE WORKPLACE
Report of the

United States

Postal Service Commission

On A Safe and Secure

Workplace

August 2000

Prepared by

THE NATIONAL CENTER ON

ADDICTION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE

AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Acknowledgements

Thousands of employees of the Postal Service and in all sectors of the American

workforce took the time to complete the Commission's survey questionnaire. Hundreds of

Postal Service employees at all levels participated in focus groups and interviews. Union

and management association officials at the national, regional, and local levels also

participated in lengthy interviews. Postal executives and officials of the postal unions and

management associations testified before the Commission. Many experts on workplace

violence and the Postal Service provided advice and assistance.

Many postal officials provided materials and information to the Commission. Particular

thanks are due to Thomas J. Lang, Kathleen A. Dial, and Robert Bethel, who served as

liaisons to the Commission. Suzanne H. Milton and Stephen Barbour also responded to

many requests for information.

Numerous staffers of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia

University assisted the Commission. Several subcontractors contributed to the Report,

including Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas, Inc., Hewitt Associates, LLC, and

James P. Lynch.

The Commission gratefully acknowledges these contributions.
i

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 1

General Conclusions................................................................................ 1

Death at Work.......................................................................................... 1

Risk of Being Killed...................................................................... 1

Risk of Being Killed by Coworkers and Non-Coworkers............... 2

Homicides by Postal Employees.................................................... 2

Homicides of Postal Employees by Non-Employees...................... 2

Physical Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Verbal Abuse at Work ............ 3

Victimization by Outsiders............................................................ 3

Victimization by Coworkers.......................................................... 3

Fears About Workplace Violence ............................................................. 3

Attitudes and Psychological Characteristics of Workers........................... 4

"Going Postal"?....................................................................................... 4

Substance Abuse and Workplace Violence................................................ 4

USPS Programs and Policies................................................................... 4

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 5

1. What Is the United States Postal Service? ............................................................... 7

ORGANIZATION OF THE POSTAL SERVICE .............................................................. 7

POSTAL WORKFORCE ........................................................................................... 7

Characteristics of the Postal Workforce ................................................... 9

Veterans' Preference ................................................................................ 9

COMPENSATION ................................................................................................... 9

2. Death in the Workplace .......................................................................................... 11

VICTIMS............................................................................................................. 12

By Industry ............................................................................................ 12

By Occupation ....................................................................................... 12

Demographic Groups............................................................................. 12

PERPETRATORS .................................................................................................. 13

WORKPLACE SUICIDES ....................................................................................... 13

A DETAILED LOOK AT HOMICIDES INVOLVING USPS EMPLOYEES ...................... 13

Homicides by Non-Employees................................................................ 13

Summaries of Homicides by Non-Employees.......................................... 14

Chatsworth, California, August 10, 1999 .................................... 14

Ruby, Alaska, June 20, 1996....................................................... 14

Washington, D.C., June 11, 1996................................................ 14

Hartford, Connecticut, January 30, 1996..................................... 15

Miami, Florida, August 5, 1994 .................................................. 15

Bronx, New York, January 21, 1993........................................... 15

Crockett, Virginia, September 18, 1992 ...................................... 15

Paulina, Louisiana, April 23, 1992............................................... 15

Andover, Massachusetts, November 7, 1991............................... 16
ii

Dayton, Alabama, May 24, 1991................................................. 16

Gainesboro, Tennessee, February 27, 1990 ................................. 16

Miami, Florida, September 26, 1989 ........................................... 16

Pinetta, Florida, June 20, 1988.................................................... 16

Los Angeles, California, April 26, 1986 ...................................... 16

Homicides by Current or Former Postal Employees............................... 16

Summaries of Homicides by Current or Former Employees.................... 17

Dallas, Texas, April 17, 1998...................................................... 17

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 19, 1997 ................................ 18

Miami Beach, Florida, September 2, 1997................................... 18

Las Vegas, Nevada, December 19, 1996 ..................................... 18

City of Industry, California, July 9, 1995..................................... 18

Montclair, New Jersey, March 21, 1995...................................... 18

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, January 14, 1994 ........................................ 18

Dana Point, California, May 6, 1993 ........................................... 19

Dearborn, Michigan, May 6, 1993............................................... 19

Royal Oak, Michigan, November 14, 1991.................................. 19

Ridgewood, New Jersey, October 10, 1991 ................................ 19

Atlanta, Georgia, September 17, 1989 ........................................ 19

Escondido, California, August 10, 1989...................................... 20

Chelsea, Massachusetts, June 29, 1988 ....................................... 20

Edmond, Oklahoma, August 20, 1986......................................... 20

Lessons.................................................................................................. 20

Inadequate Pre-Employment Screening....................................... 20

Inconsistent Response to Warning Signs..................................... 21

Veterans................................................................................................. 21

Guns, Drugs, and Alcohol...................................................................... 22

3. Nonfatal Violence at Work...................................................................................... 23

National Crime Victimization Survey ..................................................... 23

NONFATAL VIOLENCE: SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................... 23

Victimization by Outsiders ..................................................................... 25

Victimization by Coworkers.................................................................... 25

Different Jobs, Different Risks............................................................... 26

Anger, Hostility, Aggressiveness, Stress, Depression,

 Coping, Distress, Anxiety .................................................................... 27

Anger ......................................................................................... 28

Hostility...................................................................................... 28

Verbal Aggressiveness................................................................ 28

Physical Aggressiveness.............................................................. 29

Coping........................................................................................ 29

Distress and Anxiety ................................................................... 29

Veterans..................................................................................... 29

Attitudes Toward Work, Coworkers, and Management ........................... 30

Attitudes about Work ................................................................. 30

Attitudes about Coworkers......................................................... 30
iii

Attitudes about Management ...................................................... 31

Work Environment ................................................................................. 31

Autonomy................................................................................... 31

Pressure...................................................................................... 31

Autocratic Attitudes ................................................................... 31

Fears about Safety at Work .................................................................... 32

Discrimination ....................................................................................... 32

Substance Abuse and Workplace Violence.............................................. 33

Substance Abuse by Perpetrators of Physical Assault .................. 33

Substance Abuse by Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment.............. 34

Substance Abuse by Perpetrators of Verbal Abuse ...................... 34

Consequences of Workplace Violence and Abuse ................................... 34

Time Off from Work................................................................... 34

Injuries and Hospitalization......................................................... 34

Reporting Incidents..................................................................... 34

Satisfaction with Outcome .......................................................... 35

Guns...................................................................................................... 36

NONFATAL VIOLENCE: INCIDENTS REPORTED TO

 THE POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE .................................................................... 36

Motives ...................................................................................... 36

Characteristics of Suspects.......................................................... 36

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 37

4. Policies and Practices.............................................................................................. 39

SELECTION......................................................................................................... 39

Background Checks................................................................................ 40

Veterans' Preference .............................................................................. 40

Non-Career Employees.......................................................................... 40

Probationary Period .............................................................................. 40

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR VIOLENCE....................................................................... 40

VIOLENCE AWARENESS TRAINING ...................................................................... 41

THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT............................................... 42

Implementation ...................................................................................... 42

Limited Union Role................................................................................ 42

Seniority ................................................................................................ 42

Fitness-for-Duty Examinations............................................................... 43

SYSTEMS FOR TRACKING VIOLENCE AND POTENTIAL VIOLENCE.......................... 44

Workplace Environment Indicators........................................................ 44

Troubled Work Sites............................................................................... 44

Sharing Best Practices........................................................................... 45

SECURITY .......................................................................................................... 45

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM..................................................................... 45

TERMINATIONS .................................................................................................. 46

MANAGEMENT SKILLS........................................................................................ 46

Training................................................................................................. 47

First-Level Supervisors .......................................................................... 47
iv

Weekly Safety Talks................................................................................ 47

Substance Abuse .................................................................................... 47

DISPUTE RESOLUTION......................................................................................... 48

Grievance Process ................................................................................. 48

Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process............................... 49

Labor-Management Relations................................................................ 49

INCENTIVES FOR MANAGERS .............................................................................. 50

INCENTIVES FOR CRAFT EMPLOYEES................................................................... 51

STATUTORY PAY CEILING................................................................................... 51

Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 53

Endnotes...................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix A: Policies and Practices............................................................................ 61

Appendix B: Homicide Summaries .......................................................................... 109

Appendix C: Survey Data......................................................................................... 157

Appendix D: Screening Job Applicants to Reduce Employee Violence .................. 211

Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence............................................. 217

Appendix F: Methodology ........................................................................................ 245

Appendices A through F will be available shortly.
Introduction 1

Introduction

On October 6, 1998, Postmaster General William J.

Henderson established the United States Postal

Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace. The Postmaster General charged the Commission to "detail concrete steps which the Postal Service can take to make its 38,000 post offices and related facilities the safest possible environment for its

employees."1

 Joseph A. Califano, Jr., chaired the

Commission, which also included Douglas A. Fraser;

Beatrix A. Hamburg, M.D.; David A. Hamburg,

M.D.; John E. Robson; and Robert B. Zoellick.

The Commission conducted an intensive study that

included the most comprehensive survey ever conducted of workplace violence in our nation; numerous visits to postal facilities; focus groups with more

than 350 postal employees throughout the nation;

interviews of more than 300 United States Postal

Service (USPS), union, and management association

officials at the national level and in the field; a detailed review of postal policies and practices; an intensive examination of every workplace homicide

since 1986 in which postal employees were perpetrators or victims; and extensive analyses of national

databases. The Commission gathered information on

violence prevention in other workplaces; sought advice from leaders in government, business, and labor; and reviewed hundreds of books and articles in

professional journals on the subject of workplace

violence.

The Commission held six meetings from January

1999 to April 2000 and heard presentations and testimony from USPS executives and managers, officials of the Postal Inspection Service and the USPS

Office of Inspector General, and workplace violence

experts and consultants. The four major national

unions and three associations representing managers

all testified before the Commission.

Throughout our work, the Commission has been

conscious of the importance of the universal mail

service that the USPS provides, that it is the finest

government mail service in the world, and that

postal employees and managers are justly proud of

the service they provide to all the American people.

FINDINGS

General Conclusions

The Commission's bottom-line conclusions are:

∗ "Going postal" is a myth, a bad rap. Postal

workers are no more likely to physically assault,

sexually harass, or verbally abuse their coworkers than employees in the national workforce.

∗ Postal employees are only a third as likely as

those in the national workforce to be victims of

homicide at work.

∗ The level of violence throughout the American

workplace is unacceptably high: last year, one in

twenty workers was physically assaulted, one in

six was sexually harassed, and one in three was

verbally abused.

Death at Work

Risk of Being Killed. Of 6,719 workplace homicides from 1992 to 1998, 16 were postal employees.

Postal employees are only a third as likely as those

in the national workforce to be victims of homicide

at work (0.26 vs. 0.77 per 100,000 workers annually

in 1992-1998, the period for which comprehensive

national data are available). Comparing industries,

workers in retail trade (e.g., stores, restaurants, and

gas stations) are eight times likelier than postal employees to be victims of homicide at work (2.10 vs.

0.26 per 100,000). Comparing occupations, taxi

drivers are 150 times likelier than letter carriers to

be victims of homicide at work (31.54 vs. 0.21 per

100,000).
2 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Risk of Being Killed by Coworkers and NonCoworkers. It is impossible to compare with any

precision the likelihood of a postal employee being

killed by a coworker or a non-coworker with that of

an employee in the national workforce. For USPS,

we know that from 1992 through 1998 nine of 16

postal victims were killed by current or former coworkers. Unfortunately, we cannot identify the perpetrator's status in nearly half (46 percent) of all

workplace homicides. Unsolved crimes likely explain

much of the missing information (31 percent of all

murders in 1998 were unsolved2), while some may

be due to limitations of national data collection procedures.

Homicides by Postal Employees. A meticulous examination of workplace homicides committed by

current or former postal employees since 1986 reveals a variety of motives, including robbery, actual

and desired intimate relationships, and workplace

disputes. But this common denominator emerges:

most of the postal perpetrators (14 of 15) had troubled histories of violence, mental health problems,

substance abuse, and/or criminal convictions. Five

exhibited behavior prior to employment that should

have excluded them from being hired.

Homicides of Postal Employees by NonEmployees. Homicides of postal employees by nonemployees also had varied motives, including robbery, a dispute over a debt, anger over mail not delivered when expected, and intimate relationships.

Most non-postal perpetrators had troubled histories

as well. Victims all held jobs exposing them to the

Members of the United States Postal Service Commission

on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (chair), an attorney, founding Chairman of the Board and President of The National

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (a multidisciplinary think/action tank); Adjunct

Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at the Medical School and School of Public Health at Columbia

University; U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Carter Administration; Special Assistant to

President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969; and author of nine books. Mr. Califano was instrumental in establishing the President's Commission on Postal Organization in the 1960s, and served as counsel to the USPS

Board of Governors in the early 1980s.

Douglas A. Fraser, Professor of Labor Studies at Wayne State University and former President of the United Auto

Workers;

Beatrix A. Hamburg, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Visiting

Scholar at Cornell University Medical College; past President of the William T. Grant Foundation; member of the

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences; and an expert in violence issues;

David A. Hamburg, M.D., President Emeritus at the Carnegie Corporation of New York; former President of the

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences; and former Chief, Adult Psychiatry Branch of the National

Institute of Mental Health;

John E. Robson, Senior Advisor at the investment banking firm Robertson Stephens; Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University; past President and Chief Executive Officer of G.D. Searle &

Co.; Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Bush Administration; Chair of the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board

in the Ford Administration; and former Dean of the School of Business Administration at Emory University;

Robert B. Zoellick, Resident Fellow and Board Member at the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., Research

Scholar at Harvard University, and Senior International Advisor at Goldman, Sachs; former John M. Olin Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval Academy; former Executive Vice President of Fannie Mae; Undersecretary of State and White House deputy chief of staff in the Bush Administration, and Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.
Introduction 3

public: most were letter carriers or small-town

postmasters, and one was a motor vehicle operator.

Physical Assault, Sexual Harassment, and

Verbal Abuse at Work

The Commission found a disturbing and unacceptable level of violence in the American workplace: in

the past year at work, one in 20 employees in the

national workforce was physically assaulted, one in

six was sexually harassed, and one in three was verbally abused. USPS employees are no more likely to

be subjected to nonfatal violence than workers in the

national workforce:

∗ Five percent of postal employees and five percent of employees in the national workforce say

they were physically assaulted at work in the

past year. These assaults include throwing

something, pushing, grabbing, slapping, hitting

or kicking, hitting with an object, beating, rape

or attempted rape, and the threat or use of

weapons.

∗ Fourteen percent of postal employees and 16

percent of employees in the national workforce

say they were subject to behavior usually considered sexual harassment at work in the past year.

These incidents include talk about sex or comments about the victim's body; repeated unwanted requests for dates; unwanted sexual

touching, kissing, or fondling; and threats of rewards or reprisals based on being "nice" to the

perpetrator.

∗ Thirty-six percent of postal employees and 33

percent of employees in the national workforce

say there were verbally abused at work in the

past year. These incidents include provoking arguments, calling names or putting people down

in front of others, making people feel inadequate, shouting or swearing, frightening people,

and making intimidating or threatening gestures.

Victimization by Outsiders. Postal employees are

less likely than those in the national workforce to be

victims of physical assault, sexual harassment, and

verbal abuse at work by outsiders— customers,

friends, relatives, or other non-employees:

∗ Postal employees are one sixth as likely as those

in the national workforce to say they were physically assaulted at work in the past year by an

outsider (0.4 vs. 2.3 percent).

∗ Postal employees are one third as likely as those

in the national workforce to say they were sexually harassed at work in the past year by an outsider (0.8 vs. 2.4 percent).

∗ Postal employees are half as likely as those in the

national workforce to say they were verbally

abused at work in the past year by an outsider (4

vs. 8 percent).

Victimization by Coworkers. Postal employees are

about as likely as employees in the national

workforce to be victims of physical assault, sexual

harassment, and verbal abuse by coworkers— supervisors, subordinates, or other employees:

∗ Four percent of postal employees and three percent of employees in the national workforce say

they were physically assaulted at work by a coworker in the past year.

∗ Twelve percent of postal employees and 14 percent of employees in the national workforce say

they were sexually harassed at work by a coworker in the past year.

∗ Thirty percent of postal employees and 25 percent of employees in the national workforce say

they were verbally abused at work by a coworker in the past year.

Fears About Workplace Violence

Although they are not, in fact, more likely to be victims of violence at work, postal workers are more

fearful than employees in the national workforce

about violence in the workplace:

∗ Postal employees are six times likelier to believe

they are at greater risk than the average worker

to be a victim of workplace violence from co-
4 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

workers (17 vs. 3 percent), despite similar rates

of violence by coworkers.

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

their employer "takes action to protect employees against violence by non-employees" (52 vs.

70 percent), despite lower rates of violence by

outsiders against postal employees.

∗ Postal employees are more likely to say they fear

being robbed or attacked at work (13 vs. 8 percent).

∗ Postal workers are more likely to agree that

"many managers and supervisors try to provoke

employees to violence" (27 vs. 6 percent).

∗ Yet, postal employees are less likely than those

in the national workforce to have seen someone

carrying a gun or other weapon to work in the

past year (3 vs. 8 percent).

Attitudes and Psychological Characteristics of Workers

Postal workers are less angry, aggressive, hostile,

depressed, and stressed than those in the national

workforce, and they are better able to cope. However, postal workers have more negative attitudes

about work, managers, and coworkers:

∗ Postal employees are twice as likely as those in

the national workforce to say they would accept

a job offer from a different employer with the

same wages, retirement, and fringe benefits (46

vs. 23 percent). They are more likely than other

government employees to say they would accept

such an offer (46 vs. 28 percent).

∗ Postal employees are twice as likely as those in

the national workforce to have negative attitudes

about coworkers (31 vs. 14 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely than those in the

national workforce to have positive attitudes

about managers (58 vs. 79 percent).

"Going Postal"?

If "going postal" is meant to suggest that postal employees are more violent than the national

workforce, it is simply untrue:

∗ Postal employees are no more likely than those

in the national workforce to physically assault,

sexually harass, or verbally abuse their coworkers.

∗ Postal employees are less angry, aggressive, and

hostile than those in the national workforce.

Substance Abuse and Workplace Violence

Employees who observe substance abuse at work

more often are more likely to be victims of physical

assault, sexual harassment, and verbal abuse by coworkers. Employees in the national workforce who

observe substance abuse in the workplace at least

monthly are five times as likely to have been physically assaulted in the past year by a coworker as

those who observe substance abuse less than

monthly (11 vs. 2 percent). Among postal employees, the corresponding rates are similar (10 vs. 3

percent).

USPS Programs and Policies

The Commission found that USPS has undertaken a

comprehensive array of programs to reduce workplace violence. These programs have many

strengths, but there is room for improvement in the

execution of several of them.

The Commission has identified two major sources of

friction: the enormous backlog of grievances and

other disputes, and the dual compensation structure

that rewards managers but not craft employees

based on performance. USPS has a backlog of more

than 126,000 grievances. More than 6,300 were arbitrated in fiscal 1999. By way of comparison, in the

auto industry, virtually all grievances are resolved

before they reach arbitration. In the entire auto industry— with about 400,000 bargaining unit employees— only eleven grievances reached arbitration

in 1998. Furthermore, unlike postal craft (union)

employees, United Auto Workers members (like

their corporate managers) participate in employee

profit-sharing plans.
Introduction 5

USPS is seeking to address these sources of friction.

Some efforts have been collaborations between

management and the unions, while in other cases

some unions and management have disagreed. In

order to eliminate these sources of friction, USPS

management, unions, and management associations

must work together. A sea change in attitudes of all

the parties— and an environment of trust— will be

required to slash the number of grievances and reshape compensation systems. This will require a

sustained effort.

Based on these findings, the Commission developed

recommendations to improve USPS programs to

prevent violence and to address potential underlying

causes of workplace violence and tension. We hope

that other employers and labor leaders across

America will find these analyses and recommendations useful, and we encourage them to make a

searching examination of the unacceptable level of

violence in the American workplace.

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

USPS should:

1. Screen more carefully for signals of potential

violence among job applicants.

2. Define more clearly the meaning of its policy of

"zero tolerance" for violence and take steps to

assure that employees understand the policy.

3. Continue violence awareness training for employees. Unions should play a greater role in

such training.

4. Assure that warning signals are heeded by improving operation of local teams established to

assess threats of violence and respond to violent

crises. Take steps to assure that employees understand how they can report threats and violence.

5. Improve systems for tracking violence and potential violence.

6. To help assure safety and security for its workers: (a) establish communication systems such as

cell phones or beepers for carriers on delivery

routes, especially in high-crime and remote areas, and (b) educate employees about facility security.

7. Mount a major effort to assure employees of the

confidentiality of the employee assistance program (EAP) and that the program will not be

used as a punishment, and encourage joint local

management/union oversight of the EAP.

8. Limit the potential for violence during and after

employee terminations by training managers and

union officials how to handle terminations.

9. Increase training to develop better interpersonal

skills of supervisors and managers.

10. Strengthen incentives to focus managers on the

workplace environment in addition to financial

performance, operational goals, and customer

satisfaction.

USPS management, unions, and management associations should:

1. Overhaul the dispute resolution processes, which

are a significant source of frustration and tension

for employees and managers.

2. Agree on a system of financial performance incentives for craft (union) employees.

In addition, the Commission notes that the statutory

pay ceiling may prevent USPS from attracting the

best managers and effectively rewarding good performance of all postal workers. We recommend that

Congress consider raising or eliminating the pay

ceiling.
What Is the United States Postal Service? 9

1. What Is the United States Postal Service?

Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution gives

Congress the power "to establish post offices and

post roads." In exercising this power, Congress established the United States Postal Service (USPS) to

"bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the

people." (39 U.S.C. §101). Today, USPS delivers

some 3.4 billion pieces of mail each week to every

corner of our nation.

The mail is not monolithic. It is letters and packages;

magazines and newspapers; books and compact

discs; advertisements and catalogs; packages small

enough to carry a bottle of pills and large enough to

ship a bike; items of no value and expensive jewelry;

holiday, birthday, and condolence cards; complaints

filed in court to start a divorce or civil lawsuit; notices of default on a mortgage; and papers announcing an inheritance.

ORGANIZATION OF THE POSTAL

SERVICE

The Postal Service is organized into ten geographic

areas (Chart 1), each headed by a vice president.

Eighty-five performance clusters report to the areas.

Each performance cluster includes about 10,000

employees. Within each performance cluster, a district manager and plant managers oversee operations

and provide support services, such as human resources.

Prior to the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the

Postmaster General was a member of the President's

cabinet. With that act, the Postal Service became an

independent establishment of the federal government. An eleven-member Board of Governors oversees the Postal Service. The President appoints nine

members with the advice and consent of the Senate.

These members select the Postmaster General, who

joins the Board of Governors. Together, they select

the Deputy Postmaster General, who also joins the

Board. A separate and independent five-member

body appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, the Postal Rate Commission, sets postal

rates.

POSTAL WORKFORCE

The Postal Service is the second largest civilian employer in the nation, after Wal-Mart. In fiscal 1999

there were more than 900,000 employees, including

almost 800,000 career employees and more than

100,000 temporary, casual, substitute, and relief

workers, called non-career employees.3 Postal

workers are federal employees.

Four major unions represent more than 700,000 career employees. They have the right to bargain over

wages, hours, and working conditions, but, like

other federal employees, postal workers do not have

the right to strike. Binding arbitration resolves impasses in contract negotiations.

Employees represented by unions are known as craft

employees. The largest postal union, the American

Postal Workers Union (APWU), represents more

than 344,000 window clerks, workers in processing

and distribution facilities, and maintenance and motor vehicle employees. The National Association of

Letter Carriers (NALC) represents more than

240,000 city letter carriers; the National Rural Letter

Carriers' Association (NRLCA) more than 55,000

career rural carriers and 57,000 substitute, associate,

auxiliary, and relief carriers; the National Postal Mail

Handlers Union (NPMHU) more than 61,000 employees who move and process mail. Smaller unions

represent nurses and postal police.
10 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

The postal worker has many faces in many places,

performing a diverse range of jobs in a variety of

settings. Window clerks sell stamps and other products and handle other transactions with individual

consumers. City and rural letter carriers typically

spend a few hours in the morning at a post office

sorting the mail for their route and then deliver mail

on foot or by vehicle. City letter carriers are paid

hourly and receive overtime pay. Rural carriers are

paid an annual salary that (with limited exceptions)

does not depend on how many hours they work on

any given day. Mail handlers move and process mail,

typically in large facilities. Processing and distribution clerks sort mail: they work in small or mediumsized post offices sorting mail by hand and in large,

highly mechanized, often noisy processing and distribution facilities handling automated equipment.

Some automated equipment can "read" the addresses on more than 40,000 pieces of mail an hour

with a crew of only two people.

Some 85,000 non-craft employees may join three

management associations: the National Association

of Postmasters of the United States, National

League of Postmasters of the United States, and

National Association of Postal Supervisors. Managers may belong to more than one of these organizations, so membership overlaps. Though not unions,

these associations are entitled by law to be consulted

on pay and benefits. Non-craft employees include

senior executives overseeing large service areas such

as major cities, junior positions that operate post

offices with a few employees or just one, supervisors

Chart 1: U. S. Postal Service Areas

HI

AK

CA

OR

WA

ID

MT

NV

UT

WY

AZ NM

CO

TX

OK

ND

SD

NE

KS

MN

WI

IA

MI

IN OH DE

PA NJ

NY

 CT RI

 MA

 NH

VT

ME

MO

IL

VA

DC

MD

KY

WV

AR

MS

LA

AL

TN

GA

FL

NC

SC
What Is the United States Postal Service? 11

holding line positions overseeing craft employees,

and other jobs ranging from facility managers to positions in marketing, accounting, human resources,

labor relations, law, engineering, information technology, and other areas.

Characteristics of the Postal Workforce

Compared with the national civilian labor force,

postal employees are more likely to be male (63 vs.

54 percent); less likely to be White (65 vs. 78 percent); twice as likely to be Black (22 vs. 10 percent);

about as likely to be Hispanic (7 vs. 8 percent); and

more likely to be Asian or other races (7 vs. 3 percent).4

Compared with the national workforce, postal employees are more likely to be married (68 vs. 59 percent); less likely to be college graduates (21 vs. 37

percent); and more likely to be over age 44 (53 vs.

36 percent). Postal employees are less likely than the

national workforce to work a day shift (68 vs. 82

percent).

5

The postal workforce is remarkably stable. Postal

employees are twice as likely as the national

workforce to have worked for their employer for

more than ten years (59 vs. 29 percent).

6

Veterans' Preference

Certain veterans, such as those who have served in

combat, receive a preference in hiring for postal and

other federal jobs. Preference-eligible veterans receive five or ten extra points on exams that determine eligibility and place in line for postal jobs.

Postal employees are likelier than other federal employees to be veterans (35 vs. 27 percent) and to

have veterans' preference (29 vs. 25 percent). Postal

employees are more than twice as likely as the national workforce to be veterans (35 vs. 16 percent).

7

COMPENSATION

The law requires compensation and benefits for

postal officers and employees to be comparable to

the private sector, but caps compensation for any

employee at the top of the Executive Schedule for

federal workers:

It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to

maintain compensation and benefits for all officers and employees on a standard of comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for

comparable levels of work in the private sector

of the economy. No officer or employee shall be

paid compensation at a rate in excess of the rate

for level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5 (39 U.S.C. §1003).

Level I of the Executive Schedule covers cabinet

secretaries and a few other positions and is currently

set at $157,000. Today the Postmaster General

earns $157,000 and may not receive salary or bonus

beyond that amount— a small percentage of "compensation and benefits paid for comparable levels of

work in the private sector." In 1999, the chief executive officer of United Parcel Service earned $1.5

million and the chief executive officer of Federal

Express earned $2.1 million just in salary and bonus,

not including millions of dollars more in stock options, long-term compensation, and financial perquisites.8
Death in the Workplace 13

2. Death in the Workplace

Postal employees committed two of the most tragic

and highly publicized workplace homicides and suicides. In 1986, letter carrier Patrick Henry Sherrill

killed 14 coworkers and himself at the Edmond,

Oklahoma, Post Office. Five years later in 1991,

letter carrier Thomas McIlvane killed four coworkers and himself at the Royal Oak, Michigan, Post

Office. These and other homicides by postal employees have received massive media coverage and a

special niche in public awareness.

Recently, however, highly visible homicides in other

settings have heightened awareness of the extent to

which violence plagues our nation, including

schools, workplaces, homes, and communities. Since

the Commission was established in October 1998,

∗ Two high school students killed 13 people and

themselves at Columbine High School in

Littleton, Colorado.

∗ A day trader killed 12 people and himself in Atlanta, Georgia.

∗ A Xerox employee killed seven coworkers in

Honolulu, Hawaii.

∗ A hotel employee killed five people, including

four coworkers, in Tampa, Florida.

∗ A man killed seven people and himself in a

church in Fort Worth, Texas.

∗ Two men killed five employees at a Wendy's

restaurant in New York City.

These widely reported incidents represent only a

sliver of the problem. In 1998— the most recent year

for which figures are available— there were 709

workplace homicides in America, four percent of the

16,910 homicides committed that year.9,10 In 1998,

homicide was the second leading cause of death at

work, accounting for 12 percent of 6,026 occupational deaths. Highway crashes were the number one

"Going Postal"

"Going postal" has become pejorative popular shorthand for employee violence. There is a movie called "Going

Postal" and a computer game called "Postal." The American Dialect Society selected the phrase as a word of the

year for 1995.11 Journalists and comedians make liberal use of the phrase, and stereotypes of violent postal workers are common in ordinary conversation as well. A bumper sticker reads, "Guns don't kill people, postal workers

do."12 A 1999 Washington Post headline for a story on workplace violence read, "'Going Postal' Hits the Private

Sector."13 A column about electronic postage concluded, "One benefit is that it keeps you out of the post office.

You never know what is going to happen in those places these days."14 A St. Louis sportswriter facetiously proposed the "United States Post Office Employee Award" for a football player who attacked an official.15

The phrase has also begun a secondary life as a headline for postal news of any kind. Examples include, "Going

Postal Over Latest Rate Increase,"16 and "Truck Doors Go Postal; Mail Spills."17 Numerous cheerful "going

postal" headlines followed the Tour de France victories by the USPS-sponsored bicycle team.

Many postal employees have stories to tell of off-hand comments from strangers. Boarding an airplane while

wearing a shirt with a USPS logo, a postal manager was greeted by one pilot saying to another "You need to watch

her. She is one of those post office employees."18 Postal employees do not think the jokes are funny. They resent

the phrase and the image. Many feel the media focuses unfairly on the Postal Service. One rural carrier expressed

a typical view: "We are vulnerable because we are such a large employer. It becomes a hot issue for the headlines,

but there is no greater frequency here compared to the population." Some employees say they are embarrassed to

tell people where they work because of the violent stereotype.
14 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

cause, accounting for 24 percent. The next most

common causes were contact with objects and

equipment, falls, exposure to harmful substances or

environments, and fires or explosions.

Like homicides generally, workplace homicides have

been declining in recent years. Since the Department

of Labor began collecting comprehensive data in

1992, the number held steady at about 1,050 per

year (0.9 per 100,000 workers) through 1994, and

has since fallen each year since 1995, reaching a

seven-year low of 709 (0.5 per 100,000 workers) in

1998.19

VICTIMS

Employees in certain occupations and industries are

at greatest risk of workplace homicide. The relative

rankings for the major occupation and industry

groups are generally stable from year to year. In order to have enough postal incidents to allow meaningful analysis, we used data from 1992 through

1998, the period for which the Department of Labor

has collected data. There were 6,719 workplace

homicide deaths during this period, including 16

postal employees, 0.2 percent of the total.20

By Industry

The rate of workplace homicide for workers in all

major industries, as well as the USPS and private

postal services, is shown in Chart 2.21 Among major

industries, retail trade (e.g., stores, restaurants, and

gas stations) had the highest homicide rate, 2.10 per

100,000 workers. Public administration (including

police) ranks next at 1.66 per 100,000, followed by

transportation (including taxi and truck drivers) at

1.32 per 100,000. The rate for postal employees was

0.26 per 100,000 workers— one eighth that for retail

trade, less than the rate for private postal services

(0.50), and a third the national rate (0.77). Among

major industries only manufacturing and construction had lower rates of workplace homicide than

USPS.22

By Occupation

Among occupations, taxi drivers and chauffeurs had

the highest rate of workplace homicide (31.54 per

100,000). Police and detectives rank a distant second (6.46 per 100,000), followed by private guards

and police (6.26), and retail workers (2.10). USPS

letter carriers and clerks are identified as distinct occupations in national data and rank relatively low, at

0.21 and 0.19 per 100,000. Taxi drivers were more

than 150 times likelier than letter carriers or clerks

to be victims of homicide at work. Private messengers had a rate of 1.00 per 100,000, five times that

of USPS carriers. Private mail clerks had no workplace homicides during the period measured.23

Demographic Groups

The risk of being a victim of workplace homicide

varies with gender, age, and race. Men are more

than three times likelier than women to be victims of

workplace homicide (1.15 vs. 0.32 per 100,000

workers). The rate of workplace homicide generally

rises with the victim's age and is markedly higher for

workers 65 and over (1.62 per 100,000). Blacks are

Chart 2: Workplace Homicides Per 100,000

Workers Per Year By Industry, 1992-1998

2.10

1.66

1.32

0.77

0.50

0.48

0.48

0.44

0.39

0.29

0.26

0.21

0.19

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Retail Trade

Public Adm

Transportation

ALL

Pvt Postal Svcs

Wholesalers

Agriculture

Finance

Services

Mining

USPS

Construction

Manufacturing
Death in the Workplace 15

twice as likely as Whites to be victims of workplace

homicide (1.34 vs. 0.59 per 100,000 workers).24

PERPETRATORS

It is impossible to compare with any precision the

likelihood of a postal employee being killed by a

coworker or a non-coworker with that of an employee in the national workforce. We know that

from 1992 through 1998, nine of the 16 postal victims were killed by current or former coworkers.

Unfortunately, we cannot identify the perpetrator's

status in nearly half (46 percent) of all workplace

homicides.25 Unsolved crimes likely explain much of

the missing information (31 percent of all murders in

1998 were unsolved26), while some may be due to

limitations of national data collection procedures.27

WORKPLACE SUICIDES

Workplace suicide rates are highest for workers in

agriculture and public administration. Rates in other

industries are half these rates or less. Eight major

industries and private postal services have suicide

rates higher than USPS, but the USPS rate (0.13 per

100,000 workers) is only slightly lower than the national rate (0.17) (Chart 3).

A DETAILED LOOK AT HOMICIDES

INVOLVING USPS EMPLOYEES

The Commission examined records of every known

workplace homicide from 1986 to 1999 that involved postal employees either as victims or perpetrators.28 Nineteen eighty-six was the year of the

landmark incident in which a postal employee in

Edmond, Oklahoma, killed 14 coworkers and himself. We reviewed the circumstances of each incident, characteristics of perpetrators and victims,

warning signs, and the USPS response. Detailed descriptions of each incident are included in Appendix

B.

From 1986 to 1999, 29 workplace homicide incidents involved postal employees as either victims or

perpetrators. There were 54 homicide victims in

these incidents, including 48 postal employees.

Fourteen of these postal employees were killed in

the Edmond, Oklahoma, incident in 1986. Current

or former postal employees killed 34 of the 48 postal

victims. Twenty-five of these 34 postal victims were

killed in just five incidents. More than two dozen

individuals, most of them postal employees, were

injured in the 29 incidents.

Homicides by Non-Employees

Non-employees were responsible for 14 of the postal

worker homicides (Chart 4). Two homicides involved more than one perpetrator. Major findings

about these homicides include:

∗ Motives. Motives were varied. Six of these incidents involved robberies; others involved a dispute over a debt, anger over mail not delivered

when expected, and intimate relationships.

∗ Methods. Guns were used in eleven incidents,

or 80 percent. Knives were used in two incidents, and one victim was strangled.

Chart 3: Workplace Suicides Per 100,000 Workers

Per Year By Industry, 1992-1998

0.49

0.40

0.22

0.22

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.17

0.16

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.12

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Agriculture

Public Adm

Mining

Pvt Postal Svcs

Construction

Transportation

Wholesalers

ALL

Retail Trade

Services

USPS

Finance

Manufacturing
16 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

∗ Perpetrators. Two thirds of the perpetrators (14

of 21) were known to have histories of substance abuse or to be under the influence of

drugs or alcohol at the time of the homicide.

Fifteen had criminal histories and 13 had histories of prior violence. Three had histories of domestic violence. Four had mental health problems. These troubled histories are consistent

with research on the predictors of violence (see

box). Twenty of the 21 perpetrators were men.

Two committed suicide.

∗ Victims. All of the postal workers who were

killed held jobs exposing them to the public, with

few or no coworkers nearby. The 14 victims included seven city letter carriers, two rural carriers, four small-town postmasters, and one motor

vehicle operator. There were no significant differences between these victims and the postal

workforce in gender, race, or ethnicity (see Appendix B, Chart B.1).

Summaries of Homicides by NonEmployees

Chatsworth, California, August 10, 1999.29 Buford O. Furrow has been charged with shooting and

killing Joseph Santos Ileto, a part-time letter carrier,

on his delivery route. Furrow reportedly said that he

killed Ileto because Ileto was not White and was a

federal government employee. Furrow killed Ileto

approximately one hour after firing rounds into a

Jewish community center, wounding five people. At

the time of the homicide, Furrow was on probation

after serving five months in prison for threatening

staff members at a psychiatric hospital where he had

sought treatment, saying he felt homicidal. Furrow is

reported to abuse alcohol. Furrow has been charged

with five counts of attempted murder, one count of

murdering a federal employee, carjacking, and illegal

possession of a firearm while on probation from a

previous conviction. Furrow awaits trial.

Ruby, Alaska, June 20, 1996. Abram Paul Walter

robbed and killed Postmaster Agnes Marie Wright in

the Ruby, Alaska, Post Office. He beat and shot

her. Walter was a suspect in a number of robberies

of Alaskan post offices, and confessed to killing

Wright during an interview with postal inspectors

about a different post office robbery. He is also believed to be responsible for numerous other burglaries in Alaska. Walter was arrested once for shopChart 4: Workplace Homicides of Postal Employees by Non-Employees, 1986-1999

Location Date No. of 

Perpetrators

No. of 

Victims

No. of Postal 

Victims Motive Method Suicide by Perpetrator

Known 

Substance 

Abuse

Postal Victim Job 

Type

Chatsworth, CA 8/10/99 1 1 1 Hate Firearm No Yes City Carrier

Ruby, AK 6/20/96 1 1 1 Robbery Firearm No No Postmaster

Washington, DC 6/11/96 3 1 1 Robbery Firearm No No City Carrier

Hartford, CT 1/30/96 1 1 1 Mail-Related Firearm No Yes City Carrier

Miami, FL 8/5/94 1 1 1 Personal Firearm No Yes City Carrier

Bronx, NY 1/21/93 6 1 1 Robbery Firearm No Yes(6)

Motor Vehicle 

Operator

Crockett, VA 9/18/92 1 1 1 Robbery Knife No Yes Postmaster

Paulina, LA 4/23/92 1 1 1 Robbery Firearm No Yes Postmaster

Andover, MA 11/7/91 1 1 1 Personal Firearm Yes No City Carrier

Dayton, AL 5/24/91 1 1 1 Robbery Knife No Yes Postmaster

Gainesboro, TN 2/27/90 1 1 1 Unknown Firearm No Yes Rural Carrier

Miami, FL 9/26/89 1 1 1 Personal Firearm Yes No City Carrier

Pinetta, FL 6/20/88 1 1 1 Unknown Strangulation No No Rural Carrier Relief

Los Angeles, CA 4/26/86 1 1 1 Unknown Firearm No Yes City Carrier

Total 14 21 14 14 2 14
Death in the Workplace 17

lifting, and the charge was dismissed. He was convicted of robbing and killing Postmaster Wright.

Washington, D.C., June 11, 1996. Three juveniles

robbed and killed letter carrier Mun Hon Kim on his

delivery route. Two youths approached Kim sitting

in his postal vehicle as he spoke with a postal customer. They ordered Kim and his customer to get on

the ground. As Kim was leaving the vehicle, one of

the youths shot him. Three youths— the shooter, the

lookout, and the getaway driver— were convicted of

robbing and killing Kim.

Hartford, Connecticut, January 30, 1996.

Garfield Joseph Patterson shot and killed letter carrier Robert A. Budusky on his delivery route. Patterson shot the letter carrier because he was angry that

a check he was expecting had not been delivered.

Patterson had a history of mental illness and had

once been arrested for threatening his sister with a

knife. Before his trial, he was diagnosed with

schizophrenia and "psychotic disorder not otherwise

specified." Patterson had a history of heavy marijuana use. He was convicted of killing Budusky.

Miami, Florida, August 5, 1994. Jerrie MacDonald-Baist shot and killed her ex-husband, letter

carrier Barry Baist. The perpetrator and the victim

had recently been divorced. MacDonald-Baist had a

history of substance abuse. She was convicted of

killing Barry Baist.

Bronx, New York, January 21, 1993. Alfredo

Gallego shot and killed motor vehicle operator Guillermo Gonzalez during an armed robbery. Five

other people participated in the crime, driving vehicles or providing equipment. One was a postal employee; another was on the USPS rolls pending removal. The victim had observed suspicious individuals near stations on his run shortly before his

homicide. He reported these observations to the

Postal Police. The Postal Police patrol unit escorted

the victim on his pickups on several occasions following these reports, but they observed no suspicious activity, and did not escort him on the day of

the homicide. All perpetrators admitted to regular

marijuana and cocaine use. Two had been drinking

before the incident. One had a history of domestic

violence; another, of armed robbery; a third, of

armed assault. Three had been involved in previous

robberies. Alfredo Gallego and one other participant

were convicted of robbing and killing Gonzalez. Another participant was convicted of conspiring to kill

Gonzalez. One was convicted of perjury. The two

postal employees were convicted of robbery and related charges.

Crockett, Virginia, September 18, 1992. Jimmy

Lawrence Nance killed Postmaster Donna Stevenson

at the Crockett, Virginia, Post Office by slashing her

throat. According to the investigation, the motive

for the homicide was robbery of Stevenson's personal assets. No Postal Service property or money

was taken during the incident. Nance had a criminal

record involving substance abuse. He was convicted

of the homicide and robbery of Postmaster StevenPredictors of Violence

The mentally ill, alcohol and drug abusers, and individuals with a history of violence are likelier to be violent.

Although most mentally ill individuals are not violent, individuals suffering mental illness have been found five to

six times more likely than those with no diagnosis to engage in violent acts in the past year (11 to 13 percent vs. 2

percent). Individuals diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependence are 12 times more likely than people with no

diagnosis to commit violent acts in the past year (25 vs. 2 percent); individuals diagnosed with cannabis abuse or

dependence are nine times more likely to commit violence (19 vs. 2 percent), and those diagnosed with other drug

abuse or dependence (such as that involving cocaine) are 17 times more likely to commit violence (35 vs. 2 percent).

30

A past of non-violence can be an important predictor of future conduct. One longitudinal study found that an individual who had not committed serious violence before age 20 was unlikely ever to commit serious violence.31
18 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

son.

Paulina, Louisiana, April 23, 1992. Kenneth

Wayne Jackson robbed, shot, and killed Postmaster

Aljorie Clark Goodman in the Paulina, Louisiana,

Post Office, taking cash and USPS money orders.

Jackson had a history of violent felonies and had

been released from prison three months earlier after

serving 17 years for armed robbery. Jackson used

marijuana. During his trial, a witness whom Jackson

dated testified that he had raped her at gunpoint.

Jackson was convicted of killing Postmaster Goodman.

Andover, Massachusetts, November 7, 1991.

James Nelson shot and killed letter carrier David

Bradner on his delivery route. The motive for the

shooting was related to money that Bradner owed

Nelson for carpentry work. Approximately two

weeks before the shooting, Nelson went to Bradner's

house demanding payment for his work. The two

fought when Bradner refused to pay. On the day of

the shooting, Nelson hid and waited for Bradner to

make his regular delivery. According to witnesses,

he shot Bradner and fled the scene. Several days after the shooting, a hunter found Nelson's dead body

in his car. The police concluded that Nelson shot

himself. No suicide note was found.

Dayton, Alabama, May 24, 1991. Jerry Lee

Dansby robbed and attacked Postmaster Olive

Prowell of the Dayton, Alabama, Post Office. A

postal carrier found Prowell with her throat slashed.

Prowell was taken to a local hospital, where she

died. Dansby had a criminal history, and had been

released from prison three months earlier. He admitted using alcohol and marijuana. Dansby was

convicted of robbing and killing the postmaster.

Gainesboro, Tennessee, February 27, 1990. James

Blaske shot and killed rural carrier Roy Wayne

Grimes on his delivery route. The police never found

a motive for the shooting. The investigation revealed

that Blaske had planned to shoot the telephone man

the previous day. Blaske's criminal history included

arrests for conspiracy and threats against the President of the United States. Blaske was found not

guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to

the custody of the U.S. Attorney General.

Miami, Florida, September 26, 1989. Lucious

Delagel shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, letter carrier

Regina Washington, in the parking lot of the South

Miami Post Office. After killing Washington, Delagel shot and killed himself. According to the investigation, the shooting was related to the personal

relationship between Delagel and Washington.

Shortly before the shooting, Delagel threatened to

kill Washington, and severely beat Washington's

friend, who was also a postal employee. Delagel was

in and out of juvenile prisons as a youth.

Pinetta, Florida, June 20, 1988. Joe Williams

killed rural carrier relief Immogene Rogers by strangulation while she was on her delivery route. Inspectors speculated that robbery was the motive for

the killing, although nothing appeared missing from

the mail truck or from Rogers' personal items. Williams was convicted of killing Rogers.

Los Angeles, California, April 26, 1986. Kerry

Lynn Brown shot and killed letter carrier Dale J.

Hooker while she was delivering mail on the porch

of the home of Brown's parents. There was no apparent motive for the shooting. Brown recently had

been very depressed and tried to kill himself. Brown

had an extensive criminal history and was a known

substance abuser. Brown was convicted of killing

Hooker.

Homicides by Current or Former Postal

Employees

There were 15 homicide incidents by current or former employees from 1986 to 1999 (Chart 5). Thirtyfour postal employees and six other individuals were

killed in these incidents. Five incidents accounted for

the killing of 25 postal employees and four others.

Major findings about these homicides include:

∗ Motives. Motives were varied. One incident was

related to robbery. Six cases were primarily related to personal matters, such as actual and desired intimate relationships. Four cases were

primarily related to workplace issues; in two of
Death in the Workplace 19

these, the killings followed an arbitration decision upholding the perpetrator's termination.

Three cases were related to both personal and

workplace issues. In one case, the motive was

unknown.

∗ Methods. Guns were used in all 15 incidents.

∗ Perpetrators. Fourteen of 15 perpetrators had

troubled histories, including substance use, past

violence, mental health problems, and/or criminal

histories. Seven exhibited more than one of these

characteristics. Six either had a history of substance abuse or were using substances at the

time of the incident. Seven perpetrators committed suicide. At least five perpetrators exhibited behavior before their employment that

should have prevented them from being hired.

Fourteen of 15 offenders were men. There were

no significant differences between the employee

perpetrators and the postal workforce in race,

ethnicity, or job type (see Appendix B, Chart

B.1).

∗ Victims. Postal victims had a range of jobs. Nine

victims were managers, and managers were significantly more likely than the average of all

postal workers to be victims (0.8 vs. 0.3 per

100,000 workers). No other job types were significantly more likely to be victims. Thirteen victims were clerks; five, city carriers; four, rural

carriers; two, mail handlers; one, a mechanic.

There were no significant differences between

the victims and the postal workforce in race,

ethnicity, or gender (See Appendix B, Chart

B.1).

∗ Warning Signs. In some cases, warning signs

such as threats were taken seriously, and some

homicides occurred despite numerous precautions. On the other hand, in several cases manChart 5: Workplace Homicides by Current or Former Postal Employees, 1986-1999

Location Date No. of 

Perpetrators

No. of 

Victims

No. of 

Postal 

Victims

Motive Method Suicide by 

Perpetrator

Known 

Substance 

Abuse

Postal Victim Job 

Type

Perpetrator Job 

Type

Dallas, TX 4/17/98 1 1 1 Personal Firearm No No Clerk Transitional Carrier

Milwaukee, WI 12/19/97 1 1 1 Personal/ Work Firearm Yes Yes Clerk Clerk

Miami Beach, FL 9/2/97 1 1 0 Personal Firearm Yes No N/A Clerk

Las Vegas, NV 12/19/96 1 1 1 Work Firearm No Yes Labor Relations 

Specialist Mail Handler

City of Industry, CA 7/9/95 1 1 1 Unknown Firearm No No Supervisor Clerk

Montclair, NJ 3/21/95 1 4 2 Robbery Firearm No Yes 2 Clerks Casual Clerk

Cedar Rapids, IA 1/14/94 1 1 1 Personal Firearm No No City Carrier City Carrier

Dana Point, CA 5/6/93 1 2 1 Personal/ Work Firearm and 

Knife No Yes City Carrier City Carrier

Dearborn, MI 5/6/93 1 1 1 Work Firearm Yes No Mechanic Vehicle 

Maintenance

Royal Oak, MI 11/14/91 1 4 4 Work Firearm Yes Yes 4 Managers City Carrier

Ridgewood, NJ 10/10/91 1 4 3 Personal/ Work Firearm and 

Sword No No 1 Supervisor 2 Mailhandlers Clerk

Atlanta, GA 9/17/89 1 1 1 Personal Firearm No No Clerk Clerk

Escondido, CA 8/10/89 1 3 2 Personal Firearm Yes No 2 City Carriers City Carrier

Chelsea, MA 6/29/88 1 1 1 Personal Firearm Yes Yes Clerk Clerk

Edmond, OK 8/20/86 1 14 14 Work Firearm Yes No

7 Clerks 

1 City Carrier 

4 Rural Carriers 

2 Supervisors

City Carrier

Total 15 15 40 34 7 6
20 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

agers, coworkers, union officials, physicians, or

counselors misread such signs or mistakenly assessed perpetrators as unlikely to commit violence.

Summaries of Homicides by Current or

Former Employees

Dallas, Texas, April 17, 1998. Letter carrier Maceo

Yarbough returned from his route, entered the

lunchroom of Northhaven Station, and shot box

clerk Lavinia Kelly Shaw. Yarbough killed Shaw

because he feared that she was planning to kill him

and his family. Yarbough thought that Shaw directed her boyfriend and postal inspectors to follow

him. An evaluation before trial found that Yarbough

was paranoid schizophrenic and probably had been

for years. Found mentally incompetent to stand trial,

he was committed to the maximum security unit at

the state mental hospital.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 19, 1997.

Postal clerk Anthony James Deculit shot and killed

postal clerk Russell Daniel Smith and wounded his

supervisor and another employee. Some of Deculit’s

coworkers believe that the shootings may have resulted from Deculit's frustration toward his supervisor as well as a love interest Deculit had in a coworker. Sixteen months before the shootings, Deculit told his therapist that he was under a lot of stress

and if it continued he would kill his supervisor and

station manager. He also told her that he had a gun.

The therapist told the USPS threat assessment team

that she did not feel the threat signaled imminent

action. Nevertheless, the team sent Deculit for an

emergency mental health exam. The examining physician concluded that Deculit did not pose an acute

danger and was fit for duty. Deculit took Prozac and

smoked marijuana. He killed himself after shooting

his coworkers.

Miami Beach, Florida, September 2, 1997.32 Jesus

Antonio Tamayo, a postal clerk, shot his ex-wife and

her friend, Mirna Mendoza, while they were standing in line at the Miami Beach Post Office. His exwife survived, but Mendoza died four months after

the shooting from complications related to the gunshot wound. Tamayo and his ex-wife had been divorced four years before the shooting. He had previously been accused of stalking, criminal mischief,

and mail-tampering. After shooting the two women,

Tamayo went into the parking lot and shot and killed

himself.

Las Vegas, Nevada, December 19, 1996. Former

mail handler Charles Edward Jennings shot and

killed labor relations specialist James C. Brown in

the parking lot of the Las Vegas Post Office shortly

after an arbitration decision upholding his termination from USPS. During his tenure at the Postal

Service, Jennings was recognized several times for

excellent performance, yet he also amassed a number

of suspensions and letters of warning. He was ultimately fired for falsification of records and fraud.

Before the homicide, he threatened to kill specific

people if his termination was upheld at arbitration.

These threats were never reported to postal or other

authorities. Jennings was on cocaine at the time of

the incident and had a long history of substance

abuse. He confessed and was convicted of killing

Brown. In May 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court

overturned the conviction on procedural grounds

and returned the case to district court.

City of Industry, California, July 9, 1995. Distribution clerk Bruce William Clark shot and killed

postal supervisor James Whooper III at the City of

Industry Processing and Distribution Center. The

motive is unclear. Clark's 25-year tenure with the

Postal Service was unremarkable. His criminal history reflected a drunk driving arrest 22 years before

the shooting. Clark was convicted of killing

Whooper.

Montclair, New Jersey, March 21, 1995. Former

postal employee Christopher Thomas Green robbed

the Montclair Post Office at gunpoint, then shot two

clerks and three customers. One customer survived;

the other four victims died. Although Green knew

both employee victims, there was no evidence that

he had a dispute with either of them. The motive for

the shooting was robbery. Green confessed to the

homicides and to robbery of $5,729.38. Green was a
Death in the Workplace 21

cocaine abuser. He was convicted of robbing and

killing the postal workers and customers.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, January 14, 1994. Former

letter carrier Ronald Wendell Downs, Sr., ambushed

letter carrier Gloria Heising while she delivered her

route. He shot her repeatedly, killing her. Downs

was Heising's former boyfriend and had been fired

from the Postal Service for repeatedly threatening to

kill her. Years before the homicide, Downs was arrested for threatening Heising with a pistol and received a suspended sentence. Postal managers offered Heising a transfer to a postal position outside

Iowa, but she declined. Downs confessed to police

that he killed Heising because she ruined his life and

caused him to lose his job. Downs was convicted of

killing Heising.

Dana Point, California, May 6, 1993. Mark Hilbun, a former letter carrier, killed his mother and

letter carrier Thomas Barbagallo, and wounded a

letter carrier and four people who were not postal

employees. The incidents occurred on and off postal

property. The motive for the killings was related to a

love interest that Hilbun had in a female coworker.

During Hilbun's five years of employment with the

Postal Service, he had received several letters of

warning, a mental health fitness-for-duty examination, and was placed on emergency non-duty status

for his continual harassment of a coworker and falsifying his employment application. In 1992, Hilbun

was arrested once for drunk driving and a second

time for continuing to harass his coworker. Hilbun

had a long history of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine

abuse and never received treatment for his drug

problems. While at the Postal Service, Hilbun was

diagnosed with substance abuse disorder and bipolar

disorder. Hilbun was convicted of killing his mother

and his coworker.

Dearborn, Michigan, May 6, 1993. Postal employee Lawrence Jasion shot and killed postal mechanic Gary Montes and wounded two other postal

employees. Jasion worked for the Postal Service off

and on for 27 years in a variety of positions. The

transfer of a friend and disagreement over radio music the day before the shooting upset Jasion and apparently motivated him to shoot Montes. It is believed that he shot the two other employees because

he believed he deserved a position one of them had

received. Jasion had made a number of threats dating back to 1986. A few months before the killing,

he denied any intention to act violently. During his

employment with the Postal Service, Jasion had received several letters of warning and had been suspended. He committed suicide after killing the mechanic.

Royal Oak, Michigan, November 14, 1991. The

day after an arbitrator upheld his firing from the

Postal Service, former letter carrier Thomas McIlvane shot and killed four postal employees and injured four others. He then killed himself. McIlvane

had a long history of threatening and verbally abusing his coworkers, supervisors, and customers. He

was suspended several times for poor performance

and threats, and was eventually fired for profane

threats and insubordination. While awaiting the arbitration decision on his firing, McIlvane continued

to threaten his supervisors and said repeatedly that

he would kill people in the Royal Oak Post Office if

he lost his arbitration.

While in the Marine Corps, before joining the Postal

Service, McIlvane was convicted by court-martial of

using disrespectful language to an officer and disobeying orders, and sentenced to three months' incarceration. Two years later, he was disciplined for

driving an M-60 tank over an automobile. McIlvane's discharge was "general under honorable conditions" and he was barred from reenlistment. McIlvane had a history of substance abuse, and while

working in the Postal Service he received employee

assistance program counseling for drug and alcohol

abuse. A fitness-for-duty examination determined

that he had borderline personality disorder. McIlvane's criminal history reflects that he was arrested

for threatening several of his supervisors, but he was

tried and acquitted of those charges.

Ridgewood, New Jersey, October 10, 1991. Joseph M. Harris, a former Ridgewood, New Jersey,

USPS clerk, shot and killed his former supervisor,

two mail handlers, and a person who was not a
22 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

USPS employee. The killings occurred on and off

postal property. During his eight years at the Postal

Service, Harris received warning letters, was suspended, and was eventually terminated from the

Postal Service in May, 1990, after he refused to

submit to a fitness-for-duty examination. The homicides occurred more than a year after Harris's removal from the Postal Service. Harris was convicted

of the killings. After the incident, the police noted

similarities of the case to an unsolved, non-postal

case from 1988. Harris was convicted of homicide

and sexual assault in the earlier case.

Atlanta, Georgia, September 17, 1989. Joyce

Davenport, a postal distribution clerk, shot and

killed postal transfer clerk Tim McCoy. The motive

was related to a personal relationship between Davenport and McCoy. Davenport was convicted of

killing McCoy.

Escondido, California, August 10, 1989. John

Merlin Taylor, a letter carrier, shot and killed his

wife and two postal carriers, Richard Berni and

Ronald Williams, and wounded a USPS clerk. According to the investigation, Taylor believed that

postal management was out to get him and that his

wife was conspiring with his coworkers to get him

fired. Taylor killed himself after shooting the others.

Chelsea, Massachusetts, June 29, 1988. Postal

clerk Domenic Lupoli shot and killed postal clerk

Lisa M. Bruni at a postal facility. The day before the

shooting, Bruni gave her supervisor a letter alleging

that Lupoli was harassing and threatening her. A

manager planned to meet with Bruni and Lupoli the

next day, but the shooting occurred first. Lupoli was

under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. A criminal record check disclosed that, in

1977, Lupoli was convicted of unlawful possession

of a firearm and was sentenced to one year's probation. Lupoli had also harassed and threatened two

former coworkers. He committed suicide about two

hours after shooting Bruni.

Edmond, Oklahoma, August 20, 1986. Letter carrier Patrick Henry Sherrill shot and killed 14 coworkers and wounded six other postal employees at

the Edmond Post Office. During his tenure with the

Postal Service, Sherrill was considered a poor employee and was formally disciplined. He was hired

despite a poor federal employment history, including

a supervisor's assessment of poor attitude and performance and allegations of making sexual innuendoes. While in the military, Sherrill pointed a loaded

gun at his supervisor. Apparently, USPS management in Oklahoma City did not check job and personal references that would have excluded Sherrill

from employment. Sherrill told friends and coworkers that he was unhappy with treatment by his supervisors and made vague threats that he would

harm people at work. These threats were not reported to Postal Service management. Sherrill killed

himself after shooting his coworkers.

Lessons

Inadequate Pre-Employment Screening. At least

five of the employee perpetrators exhibited prior behavior that should have prevented them from being

hired:

∗ In Chelsea, Massachusetts, the perpetrator did

not disclose a conviction for unlawful possession

of a firearm on his application. This conviction

was discovered through a criminal record check

after the homicide. The homicide investigation

also revealed that he had threatened coworkers

at a previous job.

∗ In Dana Point, California, the perpetrator had

discrepancies on his postal employment application concerning his arrest record and medical

history (the investigative record does not specify

what discrepancies). These were not discovered

until four years after he was hired.

∗ In Royal Oak, Michigan, the perpetrator was

disciplined, demoted, and court-martialed for a

number of incidents while he served in the Marine Corps, including disobedience of lawful orders and driving a tank over an automobile. His

USPS employment application stated only that

he had been court-martialed and convicted for

disrespecting a superior officer.
Death in the Workplace 23

∗ In Edmond, Oklahoma, the perpetrator had an

unsatisfactory prior federal employment history,

including a supervisor's assessment of poor attitude and performance and allegations of making

sexual innuendoes. He had also pointed a loaded

weapon at a supervisor while in the Marine

Corps, although he was discharged honorably.

The second time USPS hired him, Sherrill was

initially rejected because of his poor employment

history, only to be offered employment after the

hiring supervisor decided not to pass him over

because he had veterans' preference.

∗ In Ridgewood, New Jersey, the perpetrator had

a military career that included discipline for disobedience and disrespectful behavior. He was

discharged "under honorable conditions," a discharge less favorable than an honorable discharge and a signal of problems in his military

record.

Inconsistent Response to Warning Signs. The

incidents involving employee perpetrators reveal a

broad range of reactions to warning signs. In some

cases, threats were taken seriously, and homicides

occurred despite precautions. Three perpetrators

had been fired for threatening behavior. On the other

hand, in several cases managers, coworkers, union

officials, physicians, or counselors mistakenly assessed the perpetrators as unlikely to commit violence. In at least two cases, managers did not report

threats to the Inspection Service.

∗ In Chelsea, Massachusetts, the perpetrator had

repeatedly harassed the victim, who asked management and her union for help. The day before

the shooting, the victim notified managers about

the perpetrator's threats. A manager planned to

discuss the matter with the parties the following

day, but the homicide occurred first.

∗ In Escondido, California, a local union official in

whom the perpetrator had confided felt he was

paranoid but not dangerous.

* In Ridgewood, New Jersey, the perpetrator had

threatened his supervisor and postmaster and

was fired when he refused to submit to a mental

health examination.

∗ In Royal Oak, Michigan, the perpetrator had repeatedly threatened supervisors while on the job

and while awaiting arbitration of the grievance

he had filed disputing his dismissal.

∗ In Dana Point, California, the perpetrator was

found unfit in a mental health fitness-for-duty

examination, placed in emergency non-duty

status, and removed from the Postal Service. At

one point, he was committed for observation in a

local psychiatric hospital and arrested for harassing a postal employee. About a month before

the killings, when the harassment resumed, this

employee was placed on administrative leave for

her safety, and the postmaster instructed employees to secure the facility. On the day of the

killings, the harassed employee was at the facility

picking up her last paycheck before transferring

to another facility for her safety. She successfully

hid from the perpetrator.

∗ In Dearborn, Michigan, the perpetrator was

twice referred to the Employee Assistance Program. A fellow employee wrote the postmaster

that the perpetrator was "a time bomb waiting to

go off." When a manager met with the perpetrator to discuss his coworkers' concerns, the

perpetrator denied any violent intentions. Another manager believed there was insufficient basis to request a fitness-for-duty examination.

∗ In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the perpetrator was dismissed for threatening to kill his former girlfriend, which he eventually did. His girlfriend

had declined an offer from postal management to

transfer out of state.

∗ In Las Vegas, Nevada, the perpetrator's wife

told his coworker that the perpetrator threatened

to kill himself if arbitration upheld his termination. After the arbitration decision upheld his

termination, a union official told management

that the perpetrator was in a rage. Managers—

including a labor relations manager who was

later killed— discussed notifying the Inspection
24 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

killed— discussed notifying the Inspection Service but did not do so.

∗ In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the perpetrator was

sent for an emergency mental health examination, which found he did not pose an acute danger and was fit for duty.

Veterans

The Commission finds that veterans are no more

likely than non-veteran male employees to be perpetrators in homicide cases. Ninety-three percent of

the employee perpetrators and 93 percent of the veterans in the postal workforce are male. Seventy-one

percent of male perpetrators (10 of 14) and 56 percent of the male postal workforce were veterans.

The 15 percentage point difference is not statistically

significant, because of the small number of perpetrators (e.g., if the number of perpetrators who were

veterans were reduced by one, the percentage would

be 64 percent; if reduced by two, it would drop to

57 percent).33

Guns, Drugs, and Alcohol

Guns, drugs, and alcohol had a pervasive presence

both in homicides by employees and in homicides by

non-employees.

∗ Guns were used in all the homicides by current

or former postal employees and 90 percent of

the homicides by non-employees. They were

used in all the homicides with more than one

victim. It seems likely that the widespread use of

guns made some attacks— especially those with

multiple victims— more deadly.

∗ The majority of the perpetrators (20 of 36, responsible for 15 of 29 fatal incidents) either had

a known history of substance abuse or were

known to be under the influence of illicit drugs

or alcohol at the time of the incident. The true

number may be even higher, since the investigations of most other cases were inconclusive regarding whether the perpetrator was a substance

abuser or under the influence of alcohol or drugs

at the time of the homicide. The relationship

between violent crime— including homicide—

and substance abuse is well established (see Apd substance abuse is well established (see Appendix E). The National Center on Addiction

and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that 73 percent of state and 65 percent of

both federal and jail violent offenders have

regularly used drugs or have a history of alcoholism or alcohol abuse, committed their crime

to get money for drugs, or were under the influence of drugs at the time of their crime.34 Without the influence of alcohol and drugs, some of

the perpetrators might not have been driven to

kill.
26 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

3. Nonfatal Violence at Work

In order to assess the extent of nonfatal violence in

the USPS and compare it with the national

workforce, the Commission conducted the most

comprehensive survey ever undertaken on the topics

of physical assault, sexual harassment, and verbal

abuse in the American workplace. The survey included questions about topics potentially related to

violence, such as attitudes about work, psychological conditions, and substance abuse. The Commission surveyed nearly 12,000 postal employees and

3,000 employees in the national workforce from July

to December 1999. The full survey and responses

are included in Appendix C.

The response rate was more than 65 percent for the

postal sample and more than 63 percent for the national sample. The margins of error are narrow: for

the sample of postal employees, plus or minus 0.9

percentage points or less; for the sample of the national workforce, plus or minus 1.8 percentage

points or less. In comparing the two samples, differences as small as one to two percentage points are

statistically significant. Appendix F describes the

survey methodology.

The Commission also analyzed data on threats, assaults, and robberies reported to the Postal Inspection Service, and we examined the National Crime

Victimization Survey, which until now has been the

best available source of data on workplace violence.

National Crime Victimization Survey

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) shows that in 1998 (the most

recent year for which data are available), 1.6 million

people were the victims of violent crime at work.35

The NCVS indicates that, like violence generally,

nonfatal workplace violence has been declining in

recent years, from 1.6 percent of workers in 1993 to

1.1 percent in 1998.36

Among occupations, the NCVS shows that law enforcement officers suffered the highest rate of nonfatal workplace violence (29.4 percent of workers in

1993 through 1998), followed by prison and jail

guards (14.7 percent), mental health workers (11.7

percent), and taxi drivers (11.0 percent).37

The NCVS has a number of characteristics limiting

its usefulness for the Commission's work. It does not

identify postal employees, and has several design

features that make any comparisons with our survey

impossible. We cannot use the NCVS as a source of

national estimates for comparison with our survey of

postal employees.38

NONFATAL VIOLENCE: SURVEY

RESULTS

By and large, our unprecedented survey reveals that

USPS employees are no more likely than those in

the national workforce to be subjected to non-fatal

Chart 6: Workplace Victimization

5% 5%

14%

16%

36%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Physical 

Assault

Sexual

Harassment

Verbal Abuse

USPS

NATIONAL
Nonfatal Violence at Work 27

violence. However, the Commission finds a disturbing level of violence in the American workplace

(Chart 6). In the past year at work, one in 20 employees in the national workforce was physically assaulted, one in six was sexually harassed, and one in

three was verbally abused.

∗ Overall, postal workers and employees in the

national workforce are equally likely to say they

were physically assaulted at work

in the past year (5 percent). In

order to avoid confusion over

different people's definitions of

violence, the survey asked specific, concrete questions. The

survey's definition of physical assault includes throwing something, pushing, grabbing, slapping, hitting or kicking, hitting

with an object, beating, rape or

attempted rape, and the threat or

use of weapons (Chart 7).

∗ Overall, postal workers are

slightly less likely than employees

in the national workforce to say

they were subject to behavior

usually considered sexual harassment at work in the past year (14

vs. 16 percent). Again, to avoid

confusion over definitions of sexual harassment, we asked specific

questions and we report statistics

on the percentage of workers

who experienced the behaviors,

regardless of whether they considered them to be sexual harassment. These incidents include

talk about the perpetrator's sexual

attributes or behavior; comments

about the victim's body; repeated

unwanted requests for dates; unwanted sexual touching, kissing,

or fondling; and threats of reprisals or rewards based on being

"nice" to the perpetrator (Chart

8). Among those who experienced these behaviors, 35 percent of postal workers and 23 percent of those in the national workforce themselves consider the behavior to be sexual harassment.

∗ Postal workers are slightly more likely than

employees in the national workforce to say they

were verbally abused at work in the past year

Chart 8: Sexual Harassment: What Happened

Base= Sexually Harassed in Past Year

4%

4%

3%

5%

70%

47%

17%

9%

7%

10%

7%

61%

59%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Told Sexual Attributes

Talked About Your Body

Unwanted Requests for Dates

Touched In A Sexual Way

Tried To Kiss/Fondle

Promised To Help If Nice

Threatened If Not Nice USPS

NATIONAL

Chart 7: Physical Assault: What Happened

Base= Physically Assaulted in Past Year

1%

1%

1%

0%

14%

3%

24%

53%

43%

26%

41%

44%

9%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Thrown Something

Pushed, Hit, Kicked, Etc.

Hit With Object

Beat Up

Threatened With Weapon

Used Weapon

Rape/Attempted Rape USPS

NATIONAL

0% = Less than 0.5%
28 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

(36 vs. 33 percent). Again, to avoid confusion,

the survey asked specific questions about behaviors. The survey's definition of verbal abuse

includes provoking arguments, calling names or

putting people down in front of others, making

people feel inadequate, shouting or swearing,

frightening people, and making intimidating or

threatening gestures (Chart 9). This definition

presents the most difficult eye-of-the-beholder

problem. For example, what a worker may consider verbal abuse in the sense of being made to

feel inadequate, a manager may consider a way

to motivate that worker to improve performance.

Victimization by Outsiders

Postal employees are less likely than those in the national workforce to be victims of physical assault,

sexual harassment, and verbal abuse at work by outsiders–customers, friends, relatives, or other nonemployees (Chart 10).

∗ Postal employees are one sixth as likely as those

in the national workforce to say they were physically assaulted at work in the past year by an

outsider (0.4 vs. 2.3 percent). An additional 0.3

percent of postal employees say they were

physically assaulted in the past

year but do not say whether the

offender was a coworker or an

outsider.

∗ Postal employees are one third as

likely as those in the national

workforce to say they were sexually harassed at work in the past

year by an outsider (0.8 vs. 2.4

percent). An additional 0.7 percent of postal employees say they

were sexually harassed in the past

year but do not say whether the

offender was a coworker or an

outsider.

∗ Postal employees are half as likely

as those in the national workforce to say they

were verbally abused at work in the past year by

an outsider (4 vs. 8 percent).

Victimization by Coworkers

Postal employees are about as likely as employees in

the national workforce to be victims of physical assault, sexual harassment, and verbal abuse by coworkers— supervisors, subordinates and other employees (Chart 11).

Chart 10: Victimization by Outsiders

0.4%

2.3% 0.8% 2.4%

4.3%

7.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

Physical 

Assault

Sexual

Harassment

Verbal Abuse

USPS

NATIONAL

Chart 9: Verbal Abuse: What Happened

Base= Verbally Abused in Past Year

16%

22%

41%

32%

51%

43%

9%

43%

17%

52%

43%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Provoked

Argument

Called Names

Made You Feel

Inadequate

Shouted/Swore

Frightened You

Made Intimidating

Gestures

USPS

NATIONAL
Nonfatal Violence at Work 29

∗ Four percent of postal employees and three percent of those in the national workforce say they

were physically assaulted by a coworker at work

in the past year.

∗ Twelve percent of postal employees and 14 percent of those in the national workforce say they

were sexually harassed by a coworker at work in

the past year.

∗ Thirty percent of postal employees and 25 percent of those in the national workforce say they

were verbally abused by a coworker at work in

the past year.

Different Jobs, Different Risks

Different jobs carry different risks of violence at

work. Some postal employees, such as letter carriers, interact with the public and spend much of their

time on their own on the street. Others, such as mail

handlers, typically work in large facilities and do not

interact with the public. We looked at postmasters,

other managers, city letter carriers, rural letter carriers, mail handlers, and employees (clerks, mechanics, motor vehicle operators, and others) represented

by the American Postal Workers Union. We also

examined four broad occupational groups within the

national workforce: professionals/managers, clerical

workers, craftsmen/operators, and service workers.

∗ Postal Employees' Victimization by

Coworkers. Among postal employees, mail handlers are the most likely to be physically assaulted (8 percent), sexually harassed (18 percent), and verbally abused (40 percent) by coworkers. Postmasters are the least likely to be

subject to physical assault (less than 0.5 percent), sexual harassment (2 percent), or verbal

abuse (10 percent) by coworkers. Rural carriers

also have a low risk of assault (2 percent), harassment (6 percent), and abuse (21 percent) by

coworkers (Chart 12).

∗ National Workforce Victimization by Coworkers. In the national workforce, craftsmen

and operators are the most likely to be physically

assaulted by coworkers (5 percent), while service and clerical workers are the most likely to be

sexually harassed (16 and 15 percent) and verbally abused (29 and 28 percent). Professionals

and managers are the least likely to be physically

Chart 11: Victimization by Coworkers

4% 3%

12%

14%

30%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Physical 

Assault

Sexual

Harassment

Verbal Abuse

USPS

NATIONAL

40%

18%

8%

21%

6%

2%

31%

14%

5%

32%

12%

4%

30%

10%

2%

10%

2%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Verbal

Abuse

Sexual

Harassment

Physical

Assault

Postmasters

Other Mgrs

City Carriers

APWU 

Rural Carriers

Mailhandlers

Chart 12: USPS: Victimization by Coworkers

by Employee Group

0% = Less than 0.5%
30 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

assaulted (1 percent), sexually harassed (11 percent), or verbally abused (20 percent) by coworkers (Chart 13).

∗ Postal Employees' Victimization by Outsiders. Among postal employees, rates of physical

assault and sexual harassment by outsiders are

less than 1.5 percent for all six groups— too low

to show meaningful variation. Verbal abuse by

outsiders is highest among postmasters (7 percent) and city carriers (5 percent), and lowest

among mail handlers (1 percent) (Chart 14).

∗ National Workforce Victimization by

Outsiders. In the national workforce, service

workers are likeliest to be physically assaulted (6

percent), sexually harassed (4 percent), or verbally abused (12 percent) by outsiders. Clerical

workers and craftsmen/operators are least likely

to be physically assaulted by outsiders (1 percent). Professionals/managers, clerical workers,

and craftsmen/operators all have the same low

rate of sexual harassment by outsiders (2 percent). Clerical workers and craftsmen/operators

are least likely to be verbally abused by outsiders

(6 and 5 percent) (Chart 15).

Anger, Hostility, Aggressiveness, Stress,

Depression, Coping, Distress, Anxiety

29%

16%

4%

27%

14%

5%

28%

15%

2%

20%

11%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Verbal

Abuse

Sexual

Harassment

Physical

Assault

Professional & Manager

Clerical

Craftsmen & Operators

Service

Chart 13: National Workforce: Victimization

by Coworkers by Job Type

Chart 14: USPS: Verbal Abuse by Outsiders

by Employee Group

1%

3%

4%

5%

4%

7%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Mail Handlers

Rural Carriers

APWU

Employees

City Carriers

Other

Management

Postmasters

12%

4%

6%

5%

2%

1%

6%

2%

1%

9%

2%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15%

Verbal

Abuse

Sexual

Harassment

Physical

Assault

Professional & Manager

Clerical

Craftsmen & Operators

Service

Chart 15: National Workforce: Victimization

by Outsiders by Job Type
Nonfatal Violence at Work 31

Psychological factors might explain violence committed by employees. Consequently, the survey

measured anger, hostility, aggressiveness, and other

psychological factors. The Commission found that:

∗ Postal Service employees are less angry, hostile,

and aggressive than employees in the national

workforce.

∗ Postal workers are less distressed and anxious

than employees in the national workforce, and

cope better.

∗ Postal workers are more likely to report little or

no stress in the average week (39 vs. 28 percent)

and the rate of clinical depression is lower

among postal employees (11 vs. 15 percent).

To develop questions in these areas, we conducted a

review of the professional literature and existing

survey instruments covering similar topics. For example, the survey questions measuring verbal and

physical aggressiveness, hostility, and anger are

based on the Buss Aggression Questionnaire, which

has been widely used and tested for reliability and

validity.39 We also developed original questions

where necessary, based on interviews and focus

groups with postal employees. In analyzing the survey, we combined questions into composite scales

based on factor analysis, a standard technique that

groups together items with high correlations.

Anger. On five separate indicators of anger, postal

employees consistently score lower than employees

in the national workforce:

∗ Postal employees are less than half as likely to

agree that "sometimes I fly off the handle for no

good reason" (3 vs. 7 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

have trouble controlling my temper" (4 vs. 6

percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"some of my friends think I am a hothead" (4 vs.

7 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

flare up quickly but get over it quickly" (18 vs.

25 percent).

∗ Postal employees are more likely to agree that "I

am an even-tempered person" (75 vs. 69 percent).

Postal employees are half as likely as the national

workforce to score high on a summary index of

these five measures of anger (4 vs. 8 percent).

Hostility. On five separate indicators of hostility,

postal employees consistently score lower than employees in the national workforce:

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"when people are especially nice, I wonder what

they want" (22 vs. 25 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

sometimes feel that people are laughing behind

my back" (11 vs. 13 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about

things" (10 vs. 16 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "at

times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life"

(17 vs. 24 percent).

∗ Postal employees are marginally less likely to

agree that "other people always seem to get the

breaks" (19 vs. 20 percent).

Postal employees are less likely than the national

workforce to score high on a summary index of

these five measures of hostility (14 vs. 18 percent).

Verbal Aggressiveness. On four separate measures

of verbal aggressiveness, postal employees consistently score lower than employees in the national

workforce:

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"my friends say that I'm somewhat argumentative" (10 vs. 17 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"when people annoy me, I may tell them what I

think of them" (29 vs. 35 percent).
32 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

often find myself disagreeing with people" (16

vs. 21 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

tell friends openly when I disagree with them"

(77 vs. 82 percent).

Postal employees are less likely to score high on a

summary index of these four measures of verbal aggressiveness (26 vs. 34 percent).

Physical Aggressiveness. On four out of five measures of physical aggressiveness, postal employees

score lower than employees in the national

workforce:

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"there are people who have pushed me so far

that we came to blows" (6 vs. 9 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "if I

have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I

will" (20 vs. 29 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"given enough provocation, I may hit another

person" (13 vs. 20 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"once in a while I can't control the urge to strike

another person" (3 vs. 5 percent).

∗ Postal employees are just as likely to agree that

"I can think of no good reason for ever hitting

another person" (53 percent).

Postal employees are less likely than the national

workforce to score high on a summary index of

these five measures of physical aggressiveness (8 vs.

12 percent).

Coping. On four separate measures of coping in the

past month, postal employees consistently score

better than employees in the national workforce:

∗ Postal employees are less likely to say that they

have felt "difficulties were piling up so high you

could not overcome them" (7 vs. 10 percent).

? Postal employees are less likely to say that they

have felt "unable to control the important things

in your life" (7 vs. 10 percent).

? Postal employees are more likely to say that they

have felt "things were going your way" (58 vs.

56 percent).

? Postal employees are more likely to say that they

have felt "confident in your ability to handle your

personal problems" (80 vs. 78 percent).

Postal employees are slightly more likely than the

national workforce to score high on an index of

these four measures (85 vs. 82 percent).

Distress and Anxiety. On a ten-measure scale of

problems assessing distress and anxiety, postal employees are less likely than employees in the national

workforce to say they have experienced any of the

problems (26 vs. 34 percent). Postal employees have

more positive responses to eight out of ten items,

and more negative responses on two items.

Postal employees are less likely than employees in

the national workforce to say they have recently:

∗ been feeling unhappy or depressed (15 vs. 17

percent).

∗ been feeling nervous and strung-up all the time

(10 vs. 14 percent).

∗ found everything getting too much for you (11

vs. 13 percent).

∗ been taking things hard (8 vs. 13 percent).

∗ felt constantly under strain (12 vs. 20 percent).

∗ been losing sleep because of worry (4 vs. 14

percent).

∗ felt you couldn't overcome your difficulties (4

vs. 7 percent).

* been thinking of yourself as a worthless person

(4 vs. 5 percent).

Postal employees are more likely to say they have

recently "been losing confidence in yourself" (17 vs.

10 percent). They are marginally more likely to say
Nonfatal Violence at Work 33

they have "felt that life is entirely hopeless" (6 vs. 5

percent).

Veterans. Because many postal employees and others believe that veterans are more likely than other

employees to be violent, we compared postal veterans' psychological characteristics with those of nonveterans. Since veterans are disproportionately male,

and we would expect differences in psychological

characteristics between men and women, we compared male postal veterans with male postal nonveterans.

Male postal veterans are more likely to be verbally

and physically aggressive and to experience distress

and anxiety, but they are similar to male postal nonveterans in other psychological characteristics (Chart

16). Male postal veterans and non-veterans are

equally likely to score high on the summary indices

of anger (5 percent) and hostility (15 percent). Male

postal veterans are more likely than non-veterans to

score high on the summary indices of verbal aggressiveness (30 vs. 25 percent) and physical aggressiveness (12 vs. 9 percent). Male postal veterans and

non-veterans are equally likely to experience stress

in the average week (60 percent). Male postal veterans are marginally more likely to experience clinical

depression (10 vs. 9 percent) and to score high on

the summary index of ability to cope (86 vs. 85 percent). They are more likely to score high on the

summary index of distress and anxiety (34 vs. 26

percent).

Attitudes Toward Work, Coworkers, and

Management

In contrast with their positive scores on general psychological measures, postal employees have more

negative attitudes than employees in the national

workforce about work, coworkers, and management.

Attitudes about Work. Overall, postal employees

are twice as likely as employees in the national

workforce to say they would accept a job offer from

a different employer with the same wages, retirement and fringe benefits (46 vs. 23 percent) (Chart

17). They are more likely than other government

employees to say they would accept such an offer

(46 vs. 28 percent).

40

Responses by postal employees in different jobs vary

widely. Postmasters (26 percent) and rural carriers

(28 percent) appear to be nearly as attached to their

current employer as the average worker in the national workforce (23 percent). Half of city carriers

(50 percent), APWU employees (50 percent), and

mail handlers (51 percent) say that they would likely

accept a job offer from another employer.

Attitudes about Coworkers. On four separate

questions about coworkers, postal employees have

Chart 17: Would Accept An Equivalent Job From

Different Employer by Job Type

24%

26%

26%

19%

23%

51%

28%

50%

50%

42%

26%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Service

Craftsmen Operators

Clerical

Professional & Manager

NATIONAL TOTAL

Mail Handlers

Rural Carriers

APWU Employees

City Carriers

Other Management

Postmasters

USPS TOTAL

USPS

NATIONAL

Chart 16: Psychological Characteristics by Veteran Status

60%

5%

15%

25%

9%

9%

85%

26%

10%

86%

34%

12%

60%

5%

15%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

High Anger

High Hostility

Verb Aggressiveness

Phys Agressiveness

Stress in Avg Week

Clinical Depression

High Coping

Distress/Anxiety

Male Postal Veterans

Male Postal Non-Veterans
34 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

more negative attitudes than the national workforce.

∗ Postal employees are more likely to agree that

"people around here hold grudges" (57 vs. 39

percent).

∗ Postal employees are twice as likely to agree that

"employees I work with should not be working

here because of their mental or emotional problems" (25 vs. 13 percent).

∗ Postal employees are four times as likely to

agree that "the use of threats or violence is an

effective way to get things done in the workplace" (8 vs. 2 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that

"the people where I work are generally polite

and respectful of each other" (76 vs. 87 percent).

Postal employees are twice as likely as employees

nationally to score negatively on a summary index of

these attitudes (31 vs. 14 percent). Postal employees

are less likely than the national workforce to say

they socialize with coworkers outside of the workplace sometimes or often (46 vs. 52 percent).

Attitudes about Management. On seven separate

measures of attitudes toward management, postal

employees consistently have a more negative orientation than employees in the national workforce.

Postal employees are less likely to agree that:

∗ "I have confidence in the fairness and honesty of

management" (37 vs. 60 percent).

∗ "My boss has always been fair in dealing with

me" (63 vs. 75 percent).

∗ "Management tells employees about company

plans and developments" (57 vs. 66 percent).

∗ "If I have a complaint to make, I feel free to talk

to someone up the line" (59 vs. 76 percent).

∗ "My boss gives us credit and praise for work

well done" (51 vs. 68 percent).

∗ "Management is doing its best to give us good

working conditions" (55 vs. 77 percent).

? "Management does everything possible to prevent accidents in our work" (63 vs. 79 percent).

Postal employees are less likely than employees in

the national workforce to score positively on a

summary index of these measures (58 vs. 79 percent). Postal employees are also less likely than the

national workforce to agree that their employer

"takes action to protect employees against violence

by non-employees" (52 vs. 70 percent), despite low

rates of violence by outsiders against postal employees. In addition, postal employees are more likely

than the national workforce to agree that

"many... managers and supervisors... try to provoke

employees to violence" (27 vs. 6 percent).

Work Environment

Autonomy. On four separate measures of job

autonomy, postal employees score consistently

lower than workers in the national workforce:

∗ Postal employees are less than half as likely to

agree that "I am responsible for counseling my

subordinates or helping them solve their problems" (22 vs. 50 percent).

∗ Postal employees are half as likely to agree that

"I have a lot to say about what happens on my

job" (32 vs. 63 percent).

∗ Postal employees are less likely to agree that "I

get to do a variety of different things on my job"

(59 vs. 85 percent).

∗ Postal employees are more than twice as likely

to agree that "on my job, I have very little freedom to decide how I do my work" (48 vs. 23

percent).

Postal employees are half as likely as the national

workforce to score high on a summary index of

these measures (39 vs. 77 percent).

Pressure. Postal employees feel more pressured at

work than those in the national workforce. Postal

employees are less likely to agree that they have

enough time to get the job done (54 vs. 63 percent).

They are also less likely to agree that they are not
Nonfatal Violence at Work 35

asked to do an excessive amount of work (39 vs. 46

percent).

Autocratic Attitudes. The survey asked a series of

questions to measure autocratic attitudes, such as

whether it is best to follow instructions without

question and whether workers need close supervision. On a summary index of these questions, postal

employees are less likely than those in the national

workforce to have autocratic attitudes (14 vs. 17

percent). Postmasters and other postal managers are

no more likely to have autocratic attitudes than

professionals and managers nationally (8 and 10 percent for postmasters and other postal managers vs.

10 percent for professionals and managers nationally) (Chart 18).

Fears about Safety at Work

Postal employees are more likely than those in the

national workforce to say they fear being robbed or

attacked at work (13 vs. 8 percent). The same proportion of postal and national workforce employees

believe they are more likely than the average worker

to be victims of workplace violence from people

they do not work with (16 and 15 percent). But

postal employees are almost six times likelier than

those in the national workforce to believe they are

more likely than the average worker to be victims of

workplace violence from coworkers (17 vs. 3 percent) (Chart 19).

All employees were asked what they most feared at

work. Postal employees are less likely than those in

the national workforce to say they do not fear for

their safety at work (38 vs. 54 percent). Postal employees are more than twice as likely as those in the

national workforce to say that supervisors (7 vs. 2

percent) and other employees (13 vs. 5 percent)

cause them the most fear for their safety at work.

Postal workers are less likely to say that they fear

customers or other non-employees the most (6 vs.

12 percent) (Chart 20).

When asked about fears in other settings, both

postal employees and those in the national

workforce are most likely to say they are very or

somewhat fearful of being robbed or attacked while

traveling on vacation or for business (21 percent).

Similar proportions of postal employees and the national workforce fear being robbed or attacked in

their neighborhood at night (13 and 14 percent), on

the streets during the day (7 and 6 percent), or at

home (7 percent) (Chart 21).

Discrimination

Chart 18: Autocratic Orientation by Job Type

16%

23%

16%

10%

17%

22%

9%

19%

11%

10%

8%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Service

Craftsmen Operators

Clerical

Professional & Manager

NATIONAL TOTAL

Mail Handlers

Rural Carriers

APWU Employees

City Carriers

Other Management

Postmasters

USPS TOTAL

USPS

NATIONAL

Chart 20: Who/What You Fear Most At Work

54%

7%

1%

12%

7%

5%

2%

12%

13%

7%

6%

12%

12%

38%

3%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Customers & Others

Supervisors

Employees

Vehicles

Equipment

Dogs

Other

Don’t Fear

USPS

NATIONAL
36 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Postal employees are more likely than those in the

national workforce to say they have been discriminated against in the past year due to race (9 vs. 4

percent), gender (9 vs. 5 percent), or a physical disability or health problem (8 vs. 2 percent). Both at

the Postal Service and in the national workforce,

only one percent of workers say they have been discriminated against because of a mental health problem or disability.

White Postal Service employees are three times

more likely than White employees in the national

workforce to say they have been discriminated

against (6 vs. 2 percent). Among Blacks, rates of

reported racial/ethnic discrimination are lower

among postal employees than those in the national

workforce (17 vs. 20 percent); among Hispanics, the

rates are the same (11 percent).

Both men and women Postal Service workers are

likelier than those in the national workforce to say

they have been discriminated against (for men, 7 vs.

3 percent; for women, 11 vs. 7 percent)

Substance Abuse and Workplace Violence

Postal employees are more likely than employees

nationally to say that in the past year at work they

have seen individuals under the influence of alcohol

(23 vs. 15 percent). They are less likely to have seen

individuals under the influence of marijuana (5 vs. 8

percent) and about as likely to have seen individuals

under the influence of other illicit drugs (4 and 5

percent). The more often postal and national employees observe substance abuse at work, the likelier

they are to be victims of physical assault, sexual harassment, and verbal abuse by coworkers.

∗ Physical Assault. Employees in the national

workforce who observe substance abuse in the

workplace at least monthly are five times likelier

to have been physically assaulted in the past year

by a coworker than those who observe substance

Chart 19: Believe More Likely than Average

Worker to be a Victim of Violence at Work from:

People with

Whom You Work

People with

Whom You Do Not

Work

17%

3%

16%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20% USPS

NATIONAL

Chart 21: Very or Somewhat Fearful of Being

Robbed or Attacked

7%

6%

14%

21%

8%

21%

13%

7%

7%

13%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

At Home

On Streets

During Day

At Night In

Neighborhood

When

Traveling

At Work USPS

NATIONAL

Chart 22: Percent Physically Assaulted by a

Coworker by How Often Observed

Substance Abuse At Work

At Least Monthly Less Than

Monthly

10% 11%

3% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

USPS

NATIONAL

Observed Substance Abuse
Nonfatal Violence at Work 37

abuse less than monthly (11 vs. 2 percent).

Among postal workers, the corresponding rates

are similar (10 vs. 3 percent) (Chart 22).

∗ Sexual Harassment. Employees in the national

workforce who observe substance abuse in the

workplace at least monthly are two-and-a-half

times likelier to have been sexually harassed by a

coworker in the past year than those who observe substance abuse less than monthly (30 vs.

12 percent). Among postal employees, the corresponding rates are similar (30 vs. 9 percent)

(Chart 23).

∗ Verbal Abuse. Employees in the national

workforce who observe substance abuse in the

workplace at least monthly are twice as likely to

have been verbally abused by a coworker in the

past year as those who observe substance abuse

less than monthly (45 vs. 23 percent). Among

postal employees, the corresponding rates are

similar (48 vs. 27 percent) (Chart 24).

Substance Abuse by Perpetrators of Physical Assault. Among victims of physical assault by coworkers in the past year, seven percent of both postal and

national workforce employees believe the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A

fifth of those who were victims of physical assault by

outsiders think the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (21 percent of postal employees, 22 percent of national workforce employees).

Substance Abuse by Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment. Among victims of sexual harassment by

coworkers in the past year, three percent of postal

and national workforce employees believe the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Among victims of sexual harassment by outsiders,

ten percent of postal employees and 18 percent of all

employees think the perpetrator was under the influence.

Substance Abuse by Perpetrators of Verbal

Abuse. Among victims of verbal abuse by coworkers in the past year, four percent of postal and national workforce employees believe the perpetrator

was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Among

those subject to verbal abuse by outsiders, ten percent of postal employees and 17 percent of all employees think the perpetrator was under the influence.

Consequences of Workplace Violence and

Abuse

Postal employees are more likely than those in the

national workforce to be upset by physical assault

(68 vs. 48 percent of those assaulted in the past

year), sexual harassment (26 vs. 18 percent of those

Chart 23: Percent Sexually Harassed by a

Coworker by How Often Observed

Substance Abuse At Work

At Least Monthly Less Than

Monthly

30% 30%

9% 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

USPS

NATIONAL

Observed Substance Abuse

Chart 24: Percent Verbally Abused by a

Coworker by How Often Observed

Substance Abuse At Work

At Least Monthly Less Than

Monthly

48%

45%

27%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

USPS

NATIONAL

Observed Substance Abuse
38 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

harassed in the past year), or verbal abuse (75 vs. 65

percent of those abused in the past year).

Time Off from Work. Most workers do not take

any time off from work as a result of physical assault, sexual harassment, or verbal abuse. Rates of

missed work after an incident are similar for postal

employees and the national workforce. Eighty-seven

percent of postal employees and 89 percent of those

in the national workforce do not take time off from

work after a physical assault; 97 and 98 percent do

not take time off after sexual harassment; 90 and 95

percent do not take time off after verbal abuse.

Injuries and Hospitalization. Among workers

physically assaulted, eight percent of postal employees and eleven percent of those in the national

workforce are injured. Among workers physically

assaulted, postal employees are a third as likely as

those in the national workforce to be hospitalized (5

vs. 14 percent).

Reporting Incidents. Among workers physically

assaulted in the past year, 33 percent of postal employees and 27 percent of those in the national

workforce did not report the assault to anyone at all

(Chart 25).

Among workers sexually harassed in the past year,

61 percent of postal employees and 56 percent of

those in the national workforce did not report the

harassment to anyone (Chart 26).

Among workers verbally abused in the past year, 24

percent of postal employees and 20 percent of those

in the national workforce did not report the abuse to

anyone (Chart 27).

Satisfaction with Outcome. Among workers who

reported the most recent incident to some authority

(supervisor, Inspection Service, security, EAP counselor, union official, police), postal employees are

less likely than those in the national workforce to

say they were satisfied with how things worked out

(for physical assault, 14 vs. 43 percent; for sexual

harassment, 22 vs. 40 percent; for verbal abuse, 14

vs. 32 percent) (Chart 28).

Among workers who were victimized in the past

year and who reported the incident to some authority, postal employees are more likely than those in

the national workforce to believe that there were no

consequences for the offender (physical assault, 63

vs. 46 percent; sexual harassment, 64 vs. 51 percent;

verbal abuse, 70 vs. 61 percent).

Chart 26: To Whom Sexual Harassment Reported

Base= Sexually Harassed in Past Year

3%

1%

22%

28%

0%

2%

2%

12%

56%

10%

61%

4%

1%

0%

25%

1%

2%

1%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Local Police

Friends/Family

Other Employee

Mgt Assoc Rep

Union Rep

Counselor

Postal Insp/Security

Supervisor

No One

USPS

NATIONAL

Not Asked

0% = Less than 0.5%

Chart 27: To Whom Verbal Abuse Reported

Base= Verbally Abused in Past Year

4%

2%

41%

44%

3%

3%

3%

41%

20%

37%

24%

21%

5%

3%

44%

2%

4%

1%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Local Police

Friends/Family

Other Employee

Mgt Assoc Rep

Union Rep

Counselor

Postal Insp/Security

Supervisor

No One

USPS

NATIONAL

Not Asked

Chart 25: To Whom Physical Assault Reported

Base= Physically Assaulted in Past Year

11%

8%

25%

43%

3%

4%

8%

48%

27%

42%

33%

18%

5%

5%

37%

3%

5%

3%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Local Police

Friends/Family

Other Employee

Mgt Assoc Rep

Union Rep

Counselor

Postal Insp/Security

Supervisor

No One

USPS

NATIONAL

Not Asked

Chart 28: Workers Reporting Incident Who

Are Satisfied with Outcome

14%

43%

22%

40%

14%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Physical 

Assault

Sexual

Harassment

Verbal Abuse

USPS

NATIONAL
Nonfatal Violence at Work 39

Guns

About one third of both USPS and national

workforce employees own guns or firearms (36 and

33 percent). The rates are higher among male workers (46 and 43 percent) than among female workers

(23 and 22 percent). Postal employees are less likely

than the national workforce to say that in the past

year they have seen someone carrying a gun or other

weapon to work (3 vs. 8 percent).

NONFATAL VIOLENCE: INCIDENTS

REPORTED TO THE POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE

Like crime generally, incidents reported to the Postal

Inspection Service have declined during recent

years. From fiscal 1995 to fiscal 1999 the number of

threats and assaults reported to the Inspection

Service declined 35 percent (from 1,820 to 1,174),

and robberies declined 54 percent (from 282 to

130).41 Unlike the survey results, which reflect selfreports of victimization, these data reflect only those

incidents that come to the attention of the Postal

Inspection Service.

Of the incidents reported, 45 percent were threats or

assaults involving postal employees as both suspects

and victims; 34 percent, non-employees threatening

or assaulting employees; 12 percent, robberies of

postal property; five percent, postal employees

threatening or assaulting non-employees; four percent, "miscellaneous" including suicides (Chart 29).

We examined in detail the data on threats and assaults reported during 1997 and 1998, with particular attention to 252 cases in which a postal employee

was a suspect and there were either injuries or use of

a weapon.

Motives. In most cases (64 percent), the suspect's

motive involved personal disputes; in 18 percent,

labor-management disputes; in eight percent, "other

mail-related;" in ten percent, no motive was assigned

(Chart 30).

Characteristics of Suspects. Our analysis of these

cases reveals a number of characteristics of suspects

that might be associated with violence: discipline

prior to the incident (29 percent); being involved in a

personal relationship with the victim (26 percent);

having a criminal record related to drugs or violence

(24 percent); known personal or family problems (16

percent); possessing a firearm (14 percent); previous

threats or assaults (13 percent); involvement in the

employee assistance program (13 percent); unusual

or changed behavior (12 percent); substance abuse

(10 percent) (Chart 31).

Chart 32 shows the likelihood of being a suspect by

gender, ethnicity, and job categories. Consistent

with patterns in violence generally, men and Blacks

were significantly more likely than average to be

suspects in incidents reported to the Inspection

Chart 29: Threats, Assaults, and Robberies

Reported to Postal Inspection Service

Threats & Assaults: Average Fiscal 93-99

Robberies: Average Fiscal 95-99

Postal on postal

threats/assaults

45%

Postal on nonpostal

threats/assaults 5%

Nonpostal on postal

threats/assaults 34%

Miscellaneous 4%

Robberies 12%

Chart 30: Motives of Employee Suspects in

Reported Incidents Involving Injury or Weapon

Use, 1997-1998

Labor-Mgmt

Dispute 18%

 Personal Dispute 64%

Other Mail-Related 8%

No Motive Assigned 10%
40 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Service. Overall, 14 workers per 100,000 were suspects annually in cases involving weapons or injuries. For men, the rate was 18 per 100,000. For

Blacks, it was 29 per 100,000. Mail handlers— who

are more likely than other employee groups to be

male and Black— were also significantly more likely

than average to be suspects (32 per 100,000).

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Overall patterns of nonfatal violence affecting USPS

and national workforce employees are similar in

many respects. Victimization by non-coworkers is

most common for workers who interact with the

public, such as letter carriers and postmasters at

USPS and service workers in the national

workforce.

There are substantial differences in attitudes and

psychological characteristics between USPS employees and those in the national workforce. Postal

employees are less angry, aggressive, hostile, depressed, and stressed than the national workforce.

They are better able to cope. On the other hand,

postal employees have more negative attitudes about

work, coworkers, and management than the national

workforce. They have less confidence in management's interest in protecting workers and its ability

to do so, are more likely to say they have been victims of discrimination, and are more fearful of violence from their coworkers.

Chart 32: Employee Suspects in Reported 

Incidents Involving Injury or Weapons Use, 

by Gender, Ethnicity, and Job Category, 

1997 & 1998.

No. Suspects

No. Suspects 

Per 100,000 

Employees

Total 252 14.0

Male* 190 17.7

Female* 61 8.5

Missing 1

White* 108 9.1

Black* 108 28.5

Hispanic 17 14.1

Other 17 15.5

Missing 2

Supervisors/managers 18 12.2

Clerks/MV Operators/ 

Maintenance 83 12.1

City carriers 72 15.1

Rural carriers 6 5.9

Mail Handlers* 39 32.1

Noncareer* 19 7.9

Missing 15

* Number of suspects per 100,000 employees is significantly 

different from total number of suspects per 100,000.

Chart 31: Selected Characteristics of 

Employee Suspects

N %

Disciplined prior to incident 72 29%

Involved in personal relationship 

with victim 66 26%

Criminal record of drugs or 

violence 60 24%

Known personal or family 

problems 40 16%

Known to possess firearm 36 14%

Assault/threat-related actions 34 13%

Involved in EAP 32 13%

Regularly exhibited unusual 

behavior or behavior change 29 12%

Known to abuse drugs or alcohol 26 10%

Known to use prescribed 

psychotropic medication 13 5%

Diagnosed with a psychological 

condition 10 4%

Diagnosed with a physical 

condition 9 4%

Previous military discipline 8 3%

Pending or active workers' 

compensation claim 5 2%

None of the above characteristics 70 28%

Total 252

Percents add to more than 100% because some 

suspects have multiple characteristics.
42 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

4. Policies and Practices

The Commission examined policies and practices in

a wide range of areas potentially related to workplace violence, including those:

∗ Related to new employees and their selection,

screening, orientation, and probationary period;

∗ Aimed at preventing violence, including zero

tolerance for violence, violence awareness training, threat assessment and crisis management,

systems for monitoring violence and potential

violence, security, the employee assistance program, and policies for handling terminations;

∗ That might tend to foster or inhibit violence, including management skills, substance abuse, dispute resolution and labor-management relations,

incentives for managers, and incentives for craft

employees.

The Commission assessed postal policies, how they

are carried out, and the perceptions of craft employees, supervisors and managers, and union officials.

Appendix A includes detailed descriptions of policies, practices, and perceptions.

The Commission found that USPS has undertaken

comprehensive programs aimed at reducing workplace violence, including every major activity typically recommended by experts in workplace violence. The Commission believes that some programs can be executed more effectively.

The Commission also found that USPS faces particular challenges entrenched in the organization's

history and structure. Sources of friction include the

longstanding backlog of labor grievances and other

disputes, and a structure of conflicting incentives in

which pay for managers is linked to performance but

pay for craft (union) employees is not.

USPS has launched initiatives to address these

sources of friction and other problems in the work

environment. Some have been collaborative efforts

of management and the unions; in other cases, some

unions and management have disagreed. Change will

require sustained commitment by management, unions, management associations, and employees at all

levels.

SELECTION

Selecting employees is a critical element in preventing employee violence because of the documented

link between past and future violence (see Appendix

D). Selection is particularly important at USPS, because postal employees tend to stay a long time and,

as federal employees, they have more protections

against termination than many workers in the private

sector.

USPS policies for selecting new employees have a

number of strengths. On its face, the hiring process

includes a pre-employment orientation, a thorough

application form, structured interview, drug screening test, post-offer medical assessment, and local

and national background checks covering past employment, criminal convictions, prior federal investigations, and military records. Consistent with legal

requirements, USPS does not automatically bar from

employment anyone with a criminal conviction but

considers each case individually (see Appendix D).

These elements represent a thorough approach to

determining eligibility for employment and suitability

for the job. Even without a specific disqualifying

factor, hiring officials have the option not to hire an

employee who seems unsuitable by using the "rule of

three." (For any one job, an applicant is picked from

among the top three scorers on the relevant list. An

applicant who is passed over three times is no longer

considered qualified.)
Policies and Practices 43

Weaknesses in the hiring process lie primarily in

execution. We describe these below.

Background Checks

The Commission finds that there has been inconsistent implementation of required background checks.

Several homicides were committed by employees

who probably would not have been hired if the

background checks had been more effective. USPS

has initiated efforts to improve compliance, such as

introducing automated fingerprinting equipment to

reduce errors. But background checks still take too

long; too often they do not provide information until

the probationary period is over, when it is more difficult to dismiss an employee. One inspector commented that "there are two cases where we found

out the employees were convicted criminals, but it

was too late because they had already passed the 90-

day probationary period." There are sometimes delays on the part of the Inspection Service in transmitting information from background checks to human resources officials. The Commission's findings

are supported in part by audits independently conducted by the Postal Inspection Service and the

General Accounting Office.42

Veterans' Preference

Some hiring officials have misconceptions about

veterans' preference, believing that preferenceeligible veterans must be hired. One manager said,

"We barely screen vets because we know we have

no choice and... they're impossible to fire." The

Commission finds that in some cases hiring officials

have made poor decisions because they misunderstood or were intimidated by veterans' preference.

At least one homicide was committed by an employee who was given a job because a hiring official

felt she had to hire him because he was a veteran.

Non-Career Employees

A number of managers are frustrated that they cannot give special consideration to casual, temporary,

substitute, and relief employees for career positions

when the non-career employees have already been

screened and trained and are known to be good

workers. Probably the best predictor of behavior is

prior behavior in similar situations.

Probationary Period

Some managers feel the 90-day probationary period

for craft employees is too short. According to one,

"Anyone can get through three months. A year

would help you detect attendance or performance

problems." Others believe the current probationary

period is not well used because required evaluations

during the probationary period are not timely performed. According to one official, evaluations are

often completed pro forma, "on day 89."

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Complete and send to appropriate personnel a background check for every new

employee before the end of the 90-day

probationary period. USPS should seek to

maintain the current 90-day probationary

period, but if it is well documented that

90 days is insufficient for appropriate

background checks, USPS and the unions

should consider extending the period.

∗ Ensure that hiring officials understand

that all applicants must be screened for

eligibility and suitability, including

screening for signals of potential violence,

regardless of veteran status.

∗ Require the timely completion of evaluations before the probationary period ends.

∗ Give special consideration to non-career

employees in hiring for career positions.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR VIOLENCE

The USPS has established a policy of zero tolerance

for violence, which echoes a joint statement signed

by management and most of the employee organizations in 1992. All the management associations and

all the unions except the 344,000-member American

Postal Workers Union signed the statement. The

policy states that
44 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

each and every act or threat of violence, regardless of the initiator, will elicit an immediate

and firm response, which could involve discipline up to and including removal.43

The national zero tolerance policy does not define

threats or violence or specify consequences for particular acts. Each of the 85 performance clusters is

responsible for issuing its own local zero tolerance

policy.

USPS's policy of zero tolerance is well known: 78

percent of surveyed employees have heard of it. The

1992 joint statement was published in the Postal

Bulletin, which is sent to all facilities and posted on

bulletin boards. The zero tolerance policy is stated in

the Threat Assessment Team Guide, and is discussed

in violence awareness training materials. It is also

discussed during orientation for new employees and

in a video on workplace environment viewed by all

employees during FY2000.

Some managers believe the policy has raised awareness and reduced incidents of aggressive behavior.

One official said, "The bar is continually being raised

for what constitutes acceptable behavior. More and

more, employees speak up when they hear idle

threats." In our survey, 61 percent of postal employees say they believe zero tolerance is very or somewhat effective, and 62 percent believe it is applied

fairly. The proportion believing that the policy is

applied fairly ranges from a high of 86 percent

among postmasters to a low of 44 percent among

mail handlers. Some employees and union officials

believe the policy is enforced only against craft employees, not managers.

Postal employees are as likely as those in the national workforce to agree that "I would definitely be

disciplined or punished if I threatened or assaulted

someone at work" (88 and 87 percent). However,

postal employees are more likely to agree that their

employer's "policies make it difficult for employees

to protect themselves" (35 vs. 14 percent) and that

"it's hard... to fire people for threats or violence" (38

vs. 13 percent).

There is confusion about what the zero tolerance

policy means and what the consequences are for

different acts. Some supervisors feel it is pointless to

try to enforce discipline because their decisions will

be overturned through the grievance and arbitration

process. One commented, "I've tried writing them

up, nothing happens. Supervisors get frustrated, so

they look the other way."

In the Commission's focus groups with craft employees, laughter was a common reaction to questions about zero tolerance for violence. Some employees believe the policy is a "joke" and ineffective.

The Commission recommends that USPS and

employee organizations develop clear and specific guidelines for the implementation of the

policy of zero tolerance for violence. Such guidelines should define threats and violence by listing

specific behavior and providing examples.

Guidelines should list specific factors to be considered in determining discipline, such as motivation, record of previous threatening or violent

behavior, perceived seriousness of a threat, and

degree of actual or potential harm to the victim.

VIOLENCE AWARENESS TRAINING

USPS conducts violence awareness training programs for managers and craft employees covering

such topics as warning signs of workplace violence,

prevention strategies, anger management, crisis

management planning, and zero tolerance.

The violence awareness program for managers has

been incorporated into training for all new supervisors. In responding to our survey, 45 percent of

postmasters and 70 percent of other managers say

they have participated in a workplace violence

awareness program. The national program for craft

employees is new in FY2000, but 13 to 16 percent

of craft employees say they have participated in a

violence awareness program. Across management

and crafts in our survey, 80 percent of employees

who have participated in workplace violence awareness programs rate them positively.
Policies and Practices 45

Weaknesses in the program include the absence of

any national ongoing refresher program for managers or craft employees, the fact that substantial numbers of employees at all levels say they have not

participated in any programs, and the limited role

that unions play in developing the programs. Programs developed and presented jointly by unions and

management are likely to have greater credibility

with craft employees. Moreover, union officials, like

management, have to deal with threatening or violent employees and need training in how to respond.

The Commission recommends that (a) USPS

make training in violence awareness and related

areas mandatory for employees at all levels and

offer periodic, mandatory refresher training, and

(b) unions join management in developing violence awareness programs and union officials receive violence awareness training.

THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CRISIS

MANAGEMENT

In 1997, USPS developed procedures for threat assessment and crisis management. Each of the 85

performance clusters is required to maintain a threat

assessment team to assess threats and develop plans

to reduce the risk of violence, and a crisis management team to respond to violent incidents by caring

for victims and their families and establishing an orderly return to normal operations. Medical and human resources staff usually participate in both teams.

Threat assessment team members are supposed to

attend an initial two-day orientation and meet at

least quarterly to review threats and responses. Crisis management team members also receive training,

and are supposed to conduct regular crisis simulations.

Implementation

In some performance clusters threat assessment

teams have not met regularly, and members are unclear about their roles. Threat assessment teams are

not well known among employees. Many employees

are reluctant to report threats or do not know where

to do so, although the Inspection Service maintains a

24-hour toll-free hotline and the Threat Assessment

Team Guide states that all employees should be

made aware of the existence of the local team and

systems supporting zero tolerance. Comments from

employees included, "I reported a situation to personnel; it was a week and a half before they called

me about it." "You can't report it within the office in

certain offices, because there is a clique between the

supervisor and the postmaster. If you report to the

supervisor, he will laugh." "What options do we

have to report something? There's no one that seems

to be neutral that you can go to that's not going to

cut your throat later. If you report something, you

are going to get it later on."

In the performance clusters that the Commission

visited, members of crisis management teams generally seemed to understand their roles, had participated in a recent simulation, and felt well prepared

to respond to a violent crisis. However, eleven of 85

performance clusters did not conduct any crisis

simulations in 1999.

Limited Union Role

There is limited union involvement in threat assessment or crisis management. In at least one homicide

by a postal employee, union officials knew of threats

and did not share that knowledge with postal officials. Participation by unions may at times generate

conflicts with their responsibilities to represent their

members in grievance proceedings, since threats and

violence often lead to discipline. However, some

performance clusters have included unions in their

teams, and at one large private employer visited by

Commission staff, crisis response teams are joint

union/management efforts.

Seniority

The seniority system limits management's ability to

defuse volatile situations by transferring employees.

Some employees who have been threatened have

refused offers to transfer to another facility because

they would lose seniority. One employee who did

transfer wrote "I used to work for the ... district.

This is where I saw a numerous amount of violence.
46 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

I have moved in the last year and transferred to the

... district; they do treat employees like people. No

violence here." Referring to the consequences of

loss of seniority in the new location, the employee

added, "The only stress is that when you transfer

from one place to another you must become a PTF

[part-time flexible], which means no set schedule—

all crazy hours— and you must work six days a

week. This creates a lot of stress on your home

life."44

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Hold area Vice Presidents and performance

cluster managers accountable through performance reviews and pay incentives for establishing and operating threat assessment

and crisis management teams.

∗ Improve employee understanding of the

threat assessment and crisis management

processes, especially how to report threats.

The Commission recommends that unions participate in threat assessment and crisis management teams.

The Commission recommends that USPS and the

unions develop a process for allowing craft employees to transfer between facilities without

losing seniority in special circumstances, such as

to avoid threats, stalking, or harassment. Such

circumstances should be clearly circumscribed so

as not to undermine the seniority system overall.

Fitness-for-Duty Examinations

One component of threat assessment may be a fitness-for-duty examination to assess dangerousness.

If managers believe an employee has a condition that

makes that employee a danger to self or others at

work, they may ask postal medical staff to arrange

an examination to determine the employee's fitness

for duty. While such exams are most commonly used

to assess physical capacity, for example after an onthe-job injury, they may also be used to assess mental health or behavioral concerns. Management may

discipline an employee for refusing a fitness-for-duty

exam.

USPS has developed new draft guidelines for fitness-for-duty exams. These guidelines state that behavioral reasons for requesting an exam may include

an increase in unscheduled absences or unexplained

lavatory use, changes in behavior or work performance after breaks, changes in behavior toward fellow

employees, deterioration in personal hygiene and

cleanliness of the work location, or inattention to

duties and deterioration in concentration and memory. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to request a fitness-for-duty exam, with concurrence

from the installation head. In most instances, before

requesting a fitness-for-duty exam on the basis of an

employee's behavior, the guidelines suggest the supervisor first approach the employee for a private,

confidential discussion, including an offer of services

from the occupational health or employee assistance

programs.

The occupational health nurse administrator and the

labor relations specialist review the supervisor's request in consultation with the human resources manager and, if appropriate, the nurse administrator arranges an appointment for a fitness-for-duty exam.

An emergency fitness-for-duty exam may be arranged immediately in cases of acute behavior such

as substance abuse, direct threats, altercations, or

argumentative behavior.

Physicians employed or selected by USPS carry out

fitness-for-duty exams. All general fitness-for-duty

exams are supposed to include a mental status

evaluation. Typically, a psychiatric exam is not requested without a prior general exam. If the initial

exam suggests a psychiatric evaluation is necessary,

a board-certified psychiatrist, in consultation with

the senior area medical director, should carry out the

exam. In some cases, the examiner may recommend

a referral to a practitioner with experience evaluating potentially violent individuals. In assessing

dangerousness, examiners should address questions

such as:

∗ Does the employee pose a threat?

∗ What is the nature and severity of the potential

harm?
Policies and Practices 47

∗ What is the likelihood that the potential harm

will occur?

∗ What is the imminence of the potential harm?

∗ What actions are required to contend with or

relieve the problem?

The nursing and medical staff are responsible for

interpreting the findings and recommendations of the

examiner for management and the employee. The

national medical director is to be consulted in interpreting all psychiatric fitness-for-duty exams.

It is not typical for the examiner to interview the supervisor or coworkers. If there are indications of a

direct threat, the examiner should be asked to recommend actions to protect the employee and others.

If the employee does not represent a clear and direct

threat to an identifiable target, the examiner should

be asked to recommend treatment or other actions

to guard against deterioration of the condition.

Management might require an employee to receive

counseling, or might require the employee to provide ongoing medical documentation to demonstrate

compliance with treatment.

USPS appears to be unusual in having national

guidelines for the fitness-for-duty process.45 However, there are a number of weaknesses in the process. There is no clear requirement for coordination

between the fitness-for-duty process and the threat

assessment team. Standards for selecting providers

to perform exams are unclear. Field medical staff

interviewed for this report were unaware that they

were required to consult with the national medical

director on psychiatric exams. Some supervisors do

not know how or when to request an exam. Guidance on how and when to request fitness-for-duty

exams is not included in the Associate Supervisor

Program or workplace violence awareness training.

Approaches to reintegrating employees found fit for

duty are inconsistent.

The Commission recommends that USPS improve the use of fitness-for-duty exams to assess

dangerousness by:

∗ Requiring medical staff to coordinate with

the threat assessment team.

∗ Incorporating guidance about how to request

a fitness-for-duty exam to assess dangerousness into the Associate Supervisor Program and workplace violence awareness

training for supervisors and managers.

∗ Making it standard practice for the threat

assessment team to assist managers in developing return-to-work plans for employees

found fit for duty after a dangerousness assessment.

∗ Clarifying the standards for providers of fitness-for-duty exams to assess dangerousness.

∗ Communicating to field medical staff the requirement to consult with the national medical director in interpreting psychiatric fitness-for-duty exams.

SYSTEMS FOR TRACKING VIOLENCE

AND POTENTIAL VIOLENCE

USPS collects a great deal of information that might

be helpful in assessing the workplace climate and the

risk of violence. Some of that information could be

more effectively used.

Workplace Environment Indicators

USPS has developed workplace environment indicators that show for each of the 85 performance

clusters information on equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints, grievances filed and resolved, employee survey results, diversity activities,

and spending on employee recognition programs.

Except for the employee survey results, the indicators are not available for units below the performance cluster level, limiting their usefulness as tools

for planning or evaluating activities at specific sites.

Data on reported threats and assaults, patterns in the

use of the employee assistance program, and the re-
48 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

sults of drug and alcohol testing are not included in

the workplace environment indicators. Data on

mental health fitness-for-duty exams and threat assessment activity are not used or even collected at a

national level.

Troubled Work Sites

USPS has established a process for identifying work

sites with a potential for violence and developing

plans to reduce risk. A committee of managers and

union and management association representatives

oversees the process. Committee members and others may nominate sites with systemic work climate

problems to be designated as troubled by the committee. As of April, 2000, there were 61 sites (out of

38,000 facilities) on the "troubled work site" list,

ranging from small post offices to major facilities.

In 1998, the Office of Inspector General audited this

process and recommended clarifying the criteria for

troubled work sites. The committee made changes in

response. Nevertheless, while some field managers

and union officials consider the process useful, some

still do not understand the process or consider it

helpful. One union official said, "We are pleased

with how the process has evolved... .We have

learned to trust each other. In many instances we

have been able to resolve, calm down, and correct

serious problems. I couldn't be more pleased." In

contrast, another union official said the process

"caused us a lot of problems because they just pulled

names out of a hat."

Sharing Best Practices

Many postal districts have initiated promising approaches to violence prevention at the local level.

Headquarters supports the sharing of local experiences through an internal Web site describing local

initiatives, informal communication, and occasional

conferences.

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Integrate additional information related to

violence into the work environment indicators, such as aggregate data on threats and

assaults, threat assessment activity, drug and

alcohol test results, and patterns in EAP use

and mental health fitness-for-duty exams.

∗ Make work environment indicators available

for units within performance clusters.

∗ Clarify the criteria and process for designating troubled work sites.

∗ Intensify the sharing of best local practices in

violence prevention.

SECURITY

Some postal employees have the impression that

their facilities are not secure. These perceptions are

at odds with generally low rates of violence against

employees by outsiders.

Some letter carriers are fearful on their delivery

routes and feel the need for a communications system. Letter carriers on delivery routes do not routinely carry cell phones or radios, although some

districts provide cell phones to some carriers.

Letter carriers have low rates of physical assault by

outsiders, but nine of the 14 postal victims of homicides by non-employees were city or rural carriers.

Comments from letter carriers included "The most

insecure place is out there in the vehicle. We need a

communication system;" "First of the month, when

you've got all those checks... ;" "I had a flat tire and

I had to wait until another carrier came by with a

cell phone."

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Establish a communication system for carriers on delivery routes, especially in highcrime and remote areas.

∗ Educate employees about facility security.

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The employee assistance program (EAP) offers free,

voluntary, confidential counseling to assist all postal

employees and their families with personal, emotional, work-related, and substance abuse problems.

Employee workplace intervention analysts in each
Policies and Practices 49

performance cluster provide oversight for the program and identify and address systemic problems in

the workplace environment. Overall, the EAP is

functioning well and most managers, craft employees, and union officials regard it highly.

Our survey found that 85 percent of employees have

heard of the EAP and 15 percent have used it in the

past two years. Seventy-one percent of employees

who have used the EAP rate it positively. Postmasters are most likely to rate the program positively

(83 percent) and mail handlers are least likely (62

percent).

At the national level, unions and management cooperate in overseeing the EAP. Locally, joint unionmanagement oversight exists in a few locations, and

participants credit such joint oversight with increasing employee confidence in the program and improving labor-management relations.

Unfortunately, some employees have misperceptions

and concerns about the program. Some craft employees expressed skepticism about the confidentiality of the program. For example, one said, "I don't

care that it is free— I don't want my job knowing my

business." Other employees complained about limited accessibility. In our survey, 16 percent of postal

employees agree that "the employee assistance program is used by managers and supervisors to punish

employees." Mail handlers and city carriers are the

most likely to agree (19 percent); postmasters (7

percent) and other managers (6 percent) the least

likely.

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Increase communication about the employee

assistance program, focusing especially on

concerns about confidentiality and the perception that the program is used to punish

employees.

∗ Encourage local joint management/union

oversight of the EAP.

TERMINATIONS

USPS has piloted a training program ("Separation:

A Peaceful Parting") to help managers defuse the

potential for violence when it is necessary to dismiss

an employee. The program aims to teach participants to recognize warning signs of violence, know

how to get help during a separation process, and

conduct a safe and effective meeting with an employee who is being terminated.

Termination is often associated with high tension,

frustration, and anger. Two homicides by postal employees occurred immediately following arbitration

decisions upholding their firing. As the employees'

representative, unions are responsible for notifying

employees of arbitration decisions. The unions do

not have standard practices for notifying employees

of such decisions. Union officials say they typically

notify employees by letter and also by phone or in

person. One arbitrator interviewed by the Commission commented, "It is very haphazard how information is relayed to the grievant. The letter sent to

the union might be opened by a secretary, and she

might tell the employee, who is usually calling in

often to find out." The postal employee who killed

four individuals and himself in Royal Oak, Michigan,

was notified by a message left on his answering machine.

The Commission recommends that:

∗ USPS expand the pilot training program

"Separation: A Peaceful Parting" nationwide, incorporating lessons from the pilot

phase.

∗ The unions develop systematic and sensitive

procedures and train those responsible for

notifying grievants when a termination has

been upheld in arbitration.

MANAGEMENT SKILLS

For decades, outside observers have criticized USPS

for a rigid management style. In 1968, the President's Commission on Postal Organization wrote,

"Supervision tends to be strongly authoritarian... and

there are frequently bad relations between worker

and boss."46 In 1994, the General Accounting Office
50 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

described "an autocratic management style... tense

and confrontational relations on the workroom

floor."47

Some USPS managers share this view, although

others believe that the culture is changing. USPS

leaders have articulated a commitment to change this

culture. Nevertheless, our survey shows that USPS

employees have more negative views of managers

than do employees in the national workforce (see

Chapter 3). Arbitrators who handle postal grievance

cases commented, "Supervisors... don't have the

proper training to manage so they become militaristic," and "Employees are regularly spoken down

to— not privately, they do it publicly. The norm is

the employee is embarrassed, ridiculed in the presence of other employees." Managers commented,

"Maybe 30 percent of managers are good communicators, 70 percent are still from the old school," and

"We need to break the paradigm of what a leader

is." A craft employee said, "A lot of supervisors

don't really talk to their people."

Training

In the past few years, USPS has introduced several

training programs to improve managers' interpersonal skills, including one for new supervisors and

another to enhance understanding of union contracts. Some managers fear the effectiveness of the

training program for new supervisors will be eroded

as the new supervisors encounter old-style managers

and the reality of the work environment. Some districts offer ongoing support for new supervisors,

such as reunions of training classes, but this practice

is not universal.

First-Level Supervisors

First-level supervisors have a powerful influence on

the workplace environment, but some supervisors,

managers, and union officials believe the position is

unrewarding and does not attract well-qualified candidates. For example, one supervisor commented,

"Supervisors are being asked to encourage employees, but who motivates us? We don't feel like we're

recognized. We get a lot of bad feedback." A union

official commented that the "supervisor is in the

worst position. They aren't craft anymore... they are

the buffer between craft and upper management."

Weekly Safety Talks

The weekly safety talk is a nationally mandated faceto-face meeting between first-line supervisors and

craft employees. Supervisors hold these talks on the

workroom floor for each shift. Communication materials are provided in some areas to help supervisors prepare and deliver these talks. Typically, the

talks include safety and security information, performance updates, and announcements. Information

about the EAP and other employee services is

sometimes provided during the safety talks. Violence

prevention has been a topic in some locations.

The weekly safety talks are used with varying degrees of effectiveness. One local union official commented, "Some units can voice their opinions and

concerns at the standup talks, some can't.... The post

office loves to post things— but they need to be discussed. You need more emphasis on verbal communication."

Substance Abuse

The link between substance abuse and violence is

clearly established in research and in the Commission's survey. USPS's policies regarding substance

abuse have several strengths, including drug screening for all job applicants; a clear policy prohibiting

sale, possession, or use of alcohol or illegal drugs on

postal property; a smoke-free work environment;

and a comprehensive employee assistance program

offering counseling and referrals to treatment. If

substance use is suspected, managers may request an

emergency fitness-for-duty exam, including drug or

alcohol testing if the medical examiner considers it

appropriate.

On the other hand, guidelines for responding to violations of the alcohol- and drug-free workplace policy are unclear, supervisors' skills in recognizing

substance abuse are weak, and many employees believe substance abuse is largely ignored. One employee commented that his supervisors "have to
Policies and Practices 51

smell it [alcohol], because I do, but they don't do

anything. They just ignore it."

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Improve interpersonal skills of supervisors

and managers through ongoing training, including training in conflict management.

∗ Track participation of supervisors and managers in training, and hold field managers accountable (through performance reviews and

pay incentives) for execution of training programs.

∗ Provide continuing training and support for

new supervisors, including mentoring and

networking.

∗ Increase the desirability of first-line supervisory positions through special recognition

programs, training, career development opportunities, or pay.

∗ Provide training and support to help supervisors use the weekly safety talks effectively,

and incorporate violence prevention messages

into these talks.

∗ Improve training to help supervisors and

managers recognize and respond effectively

to substance abusers and recovering individuals.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

USPS employees file an unusually large number of

grievances and equal employment opportunity

(EEO) complaints. There are enormous backlogs in

both systems, and it can take years to resolve disputes. Unlike employees in other federal agencies,

postal employees may file complaints in the two

systems simultaneously. Currently, only the rural

carriers' national agreement limits dual filing. The

mail handlers' agreement states that the union will

not encourage dual filing. Many postal employees

also have access to the Merit Systems Protection

Board appeal process.

Grievance Process

As of April, 2000, USPS had more than 126,000

grievances awaiting arbitration. Many grievances in

the backlog are parallel issues grieved separately.

For example, the American Postal Workers Union

(APWU) filed 40,000 grievances in a dispute over

wash-up time in the New York district.

The APWU accounts for more than 100,000 backlogged grievances. These represent 80 percent of the

backlog, although APWU represents only 49 percent

of career craft employees. Among the 344,000

APWU employees, there is almost one pending

grievance for every three employees.

The National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC)

has the next largest share of grievances, more than

20,000. These represent 16 percent of the backlog,

while NALC represents 34 percent of career craft

employees. Among the 240,000 NALC employees,

there is approximately one pending grievance for

every 12 employees.

The National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU)

accounts for about 5,000 grievances. These represent four percent of the backlog, while NPMHU

represents nine percent of career craft employees.

Among the 61,000 NPMHU employees, there is approximately one pending grievance for every 12 employees.

The National Rural Letter Carriers' Association

(NRLCA) has only 74 grievances awaiting arbitration, less than one percent of the backlog, although

it represents eight percent of career craft employees.

Among the 55,000 career NRLCA employees, there

is approximately one pending grievance for every

740 employees.

The annual cost of grievances has recently been estimated at $217 million.48 A small industry of more

than 300 arbitrators handles postal cases. More than

6,300 grievances were arbitrated in fiscal 1999.

This level of grievance activity appears unmatched in

the public or private sectors. By way of comparison,

in the auto industry, virtually all grievances are resolved before they reach arbitration. In the entire
52 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

auto industry— with about 400,000 bargaining unit

employees— only eleven grievances reached arbitration in 1998. Several federal agencies contacted by

the Commission reported only a few arbitrations

each year. USPS's procedures are similar to those of

other organizations that do not have such unusually

large numbers of complaints.

Employees and managers are frustrated by the avalanche of grievances. Disputes fester with long delays, potentially spawning violence. Managers blame

unions for flooding the system with grievances, and

unions blame management for disregarding contracts

and automatically denying grievances. Managers'

ability to discipline is undermined, and employees

cannot gain prompt relief from perceived or actual

wrongs. A manager commented, "It doesn't work.

It's a huge problem, and there's a link with violence.

It gives too much hope to employees and then they

get upset when they lose... .Takes too long... .There

needs to be a definite date when it'll be resolved so it

can't go on endlessly." Employees' comments included, "They know they violate the contract and

tell us to grieve it, because they know it will take a

long time;" "It is pointless to kick it up as it gets

stuck and you never hear back;" "The grievance

process doesn't go anywhere... .Makes me think,

'Why should I even bother?' Grievances take a long

time."

Management and the unions have cooperated on a

number of initiatives aimed at reducing the number

of grievances, encouraging the resolution of grievances at the lowest level, and resolving grievances

more quickly. Joint efforts include joint contract

administration manuals, mediation, resolving similar

issues in groups, joint fact-finding, and district-level

arbitration.

USPS recently introduced a new grievance tracking

system that offers a tool for identifying patterns in

grievances. The new system should improve USPS's

capacity to use grievances as indicators of problems,

such as complex areas of the contracts, or sites

where managers may need additional training in interpreting the contracts or using discipline.

Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process

During fiscal year 1999, postal employees filed more

than 12,000 formal EEO complaints. As of April,

2000, there were more than 11,000 open cases.

Postal workers represent about 31 percent of the

federal workforce but account for about 50 percent

of the federal complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.49 USPS has introduced a mediation program as an alternative for

resolving EEO complaints. The program, called

REDRESS, has been rated positively by participants,

who credit it with improving relationships (see box).

Comments range from "REDRESS is somewhere

employees can express feelings" to "REDRESS...is a

much better process because we [management and

employees] talk to one another."

Some employees and union officials express distrust

in the traditional EEO process because most counselors and investigators are postal employees. According to one local union official, "The major complaint is that employees don't feel the EEO process

is neutral like it is communicated. They feel it is tied

to management since the EEO person goes to the

HR manager's meetings."

Labor-Management Relations

Long-standing patterns of distrust and contentiousness mar relations between management and some

of the major unions. The large number of grievances

and the frequent use of arbitration to resolve contract disputes are evidence of this situation. Distrust

at the national level undermines local cooperation

and makes it difficult for the unions and management

to collaborate on violence prevention activities, as

the Commission recommends. At the request of

Congress, since 1998 the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service has facilitated summit meetings

at the national level involving all major unions, management, and the management associations. These

offer a promising approach to improving relations,

but have not yet yielded any joint long-term plans, as

Congress intended. Similar meetings do not consistently occur at the local level.
Policies and Practices 53

The Commission recommends that USPS management, unions, and management associations:

∗ Repair the dispute resolution processes,

which are a major source of frustration for

employees and managers, by developing ways

to prevent grievance, EEO, and other complaints; resolving disputes quickly at the lowest level; and sharply reducing the backlog.

∗ Develop contract provisions to limit parallel

filing of complaints in more than one system.

∗ Limit filing of multiple identical complaints,

e.g., by using class action procedures.

∗ Use the new grievance tracking system to

identify patterns in grievances.

∗ Continue to expand the use of mediation to

resolve EEO complaints.

∗ Step up national summit meetings facilitated

by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service, and efforts to develop joint longterm plans to improve the work climate.

∗ Initiate summit meetings at the local level.

∗ Expand joint training for management and

union officials in contract interpretation, interpersonal skills, and violence awareness.

∗ Increase the use of independent counselors

and investigators rather than USPS employees to handle EEO complaints.

INCENTIVES FOR MANAGERS

Legal limits on managers' compensation constrain

USPS ability to attract, motivate, and retain the

most effective managers. Even the Postmaster General earns less than mid-level managers at many private corporations.

What financial incentives exist have been seen as

focused on financial performance and customer

service. As one manager put it, "We're pushing so

hard to get the numbers, to reduce nonproductive

time, we can't take the time to think about how to

improve the work and involve people."

EEO Mediation: The REDRESS Program.

REDRESS (Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly) offers mediation as a voluntary alternative to the traditional EEO process. If the employee chooses mediation it is usually scheduled within two weeks.

This program was designed in 1994 as a result of a class action lawsuit in Florida, and has since been expanded nationally. REDRESS uses neutral, external professionals to mediate EEO disputes. If an employee decides to participate, then management is mandated to attend the mediation.

The mediation process starts with a joint session, facilitated by a mediator, between employee and supervisor. If settlement is reached, it is binding on everyone and the EEO dispute is withdrawn. About 81 percent of EEO disputes

mediated are either settled or withdrawn without filing a formal complaint. This rate is significantly higher than the

rate of 44 percent for non-mediated cases. Although this difference may reflect in part a tendency for complainants to

choose mediation if they are more amenable to settlement, overall the number of USPS EEO complaints reaching the

formal complaint stage has fallen since REDRESS started, suggesting that the program has increased closures before

the formal complaint stage.50

REDRESS is designed to increase participants' satisfaction with the fairness of the process by providing them with an

opportunity to be heard, control over the process, and respectful treatment by the other party and the neutral mediator.

Exit interviews conducted by an independent contractor show that more than 87 percent of employees, management,

and employee representatives are satisfied or highly satisfied with the REDRESS process and more than 65 percent

reported being satisfied or highly satisfied with the outcome.51

In 1999 REDRESS won an award from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and in 2000 it won an award from

the American College of Civil Trial Mediators. USPS is currently expanding the program to make it available at the

formal complaint state of the EEO process.
54 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Financial incentives for managers include pay raises

based on individual performance evaluations and a

variable pay program based on performance at the

national, area, and performance cluster levels. In

FY2000, USPS incorporated employee survey results into the variable pay program for managers.

This means that employee survey results affect managers' pay. This positive step has already generated

some constructive responses, such as increased recognition for craft employees. However, there is no

requirement that individual performance evaluations

for managers include measures of effective personnel

management.

USPS currently has no method in place nationwide

for managers to get feedback from peers or subordinates. A "Leadership Behavior Model" is in place at

two sites. Managers at these sites assess their own

leadership skills and receive anonymous feedback

from subordinates through an outside consultant.

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Require that effective personnel management

and communication be included in managers'

individual performance evaluations, and develop mechanisms for managers to receive

feedback from subordinates and peers.

∗ Continue using employee survey results to

determine variable pay for managers.

INCENTIVES FOR CRAFT EMPLOYEES

USPS does not evaluate performance of craft employees except during the probationary period.

Many managers and craft employees believe that

recognition programs are inadequate. Craft employees resent being excluded from the variable pay system. When asked about incentives to do a good job

at the Postal Service, craft employees responded,

"Managers get money, craft get nothing;" "Supervisors should share the bonuses with us...we're the

ones carrying the mail;" and "The #1 way to make

up time is not to take a lunch break. Every time you

skip a lunch break, you're donating 30 minutes to

your supervisor's bonus."

With no rewards for performance, most craft employees' incentives are opposite to managers' incentives, creating conflict and resentment. For example,

if city carriers finish their route early, they are supposed to return to the office for additional assignments. Thus, there is no reward for working efficiently and no penalty for working inefficiently. The

only way to get financial benefits is through overtime. Similarly, a mail handler or clerk has no financial incentive to sort mail efficiently. In contrast, rural carriers' salaries are based on an annual evaluation of their route. If they finish early they can go

home, and if they finish late they do not get extra

pay for that day.

Tools for measuring individual performance are limited, and daily conflicts over city letter carriers'

workload are a particular source of friction. One local official of the National Association of Letter Carriers estimated that "50 percent of confrontations

could be solved by the union and the post office

meeting and coming up with a new process for handling [requests for overtime]." Similarly, a senior

manager commented "Every morning there are thousands of discussions about how long the route is.

Mostly it's just opinion vs. opinion." USPS has pilot

programs in place to test alternatives to the current

workload system for city letter carriers.

The Commission recommends that USPS:

∗ Improve tools for individual workload and

performance measurement, and provide individual performance feedback for craft employees.

∗ In partnership with the unions, develop performance-based financial incentives for craft

employees, such as profit-sharing at the national or local level, pay-for-knowledge, individual performance evaluation with links to

pay, increased use of recognition programs

including cash and non-cash awards.

∗ In partnership with the National Association

of Letter Carriers, develop new procedures to

reduce daily conflicts between city letter carriers and supervisors over workload.
Policies and Practices 55

STATUTORY PAY CEILING

In addition, the Commission notes that the statutory

pay ceiling may prevent USPS from attracting the

best managers and effectively rewarding good performance of all postal workers. We recommend that

Congress consider raising or eliminating the pay

ceiling. H.R. 22, currently under consideration by

the House of Representatives, would allow USPS

profits to be used for bonuses not subject to the

statutory cap on postal salaries. This change would

be a step in the right direction.
Glossary 57

Glossary

American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

(APWU) — Union representing more than 344,000

employees of the U.S. Postal Service who are clerks,

maintenance employees, motor vehicle operators,

and other employees.

Area — One of ten USPS administrative units covering a defined geographic area, headed by a vice

president.

Bargaining unit employee — An employee who is

represented by a labor union.

Board of Governors — Eleven-member board that

oversees the Postal Service. Nine members appointed by the President select the Postmaster General, who joins the Board; together, they select the

Deputy Postmaster General, who also joins the

Board.

City carrier — A USPS letter carrier who provides

delivery service within a city. There are more than

240,000 city carriers. The National Association of

Letter Carriers represents city carriers.

Clerk — A USPS employee whose duties may include sorting mail, working at the post office windows, and performing general office duties. There

are more than 280,000 clerks. The American Postal

Workers Union represents clerks (as well as employees in other positions).

Craft employee — See bargaining unit employee.

Crisis management team (CMT) — Responds to

violent incidents by caring for victims and their

families, and establishing an orderly return to normal

operations.

CustomerPerfect! — The Postal Service's framework for setting goals and measuring performance.

District — One of 85 postal administrative units

that oversee operational and support functions

within a performance cluster. Headed by a district

manager, who reports to an area vice president.

Economic value added (EVA) — Determines

funding available for the USPS Variable Pay Program. EVA equals net operating income minus a

charge for capital used.

Employee assistance program (EAP) — A voluntary counseling program that helps USPS employees

recover from substance abuse and cope with mental,

emotional, family, financial, and legal problems.

Employee Workplace Intervention Analyst

(EWIA) — A USPS employee whose function is to

identify systemic problems in the work environment

and advise management about solutions.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) — Federal agency that enforces the principal federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination.

Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS) —

A salary structure that applies to most managerial

and administrative USPS employees.

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

(FMCS) — Independent federal agency that promotes sound and stable labor-management relations.

First-level supervisor — A supervisor who oversees craft employees. See also line supervisor.

Fitness-for-duty exam (FFD) — An exam performed when a concern arises about whether an employee can perform his or her job safely. The exam

may address physical or psychiatric concerns, or

both, and considers danger to self or to others.

General Accounting Office (GAO) — The investigative arm of Congress.

Headquarters (HQ) — The national USPS unit

that directs administration, policy, and operations.
58 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Line Supervisor — A supervisor who oversees

craft employees. See also first-level supervisor.

Mail handler — A USPS employee who moves and

processes mail. There are more than 61,000 mail

handlers. The National Postal Mail Handlers Union

represents mail handlers.

Merit performance evaluation — USPS's system

for assessing individual performance of non-craft

employees.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — Federal agency that considers appeals from federal employees regarding removals and other major personnel actions.

National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC)

— Union representing more than 240,000 city letter

carriers working for USPS.

National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU)

— Union representing more than 61,000 mail handlers working for USPS.

National Rural Letter Carriers' Association

(NRLCA) — Union representing more than 55,000

career rural letter carriers and 57,000 substitute, associate, auxiliary, and relief carriers working for

USPS.

Office of Inspector General (OIG) — Agency established in 1996 to prevent, detect, and report

fraud, waste, and program abuse, and to promote

efficiency in the operations of the Postal Service.

The Inspector General is independent of postal management.

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — The

federal government's human resources agency.

Performance cluster (PC) — One of 85 USPS administrative units covering a defined geographic

area. Includes customer service (post offices) and

mail processing (plants). See also district.

Postal Career Executive Service (PCES) — Includes approximately 800 senior postal managers

including district, area, and headquarters executives

(Level I), and approximately 40 USPS officers, including vice presidents (Level II).

Postal Inspection Service (PIS) — The federal law

enforcement agency of the USPS that investigates

criminal acts against the mails and misuse of the

postal system and protects postal employees, mail,

funds, and property.

Postal Rate Commission (PRC) — Presidentially

appointed five-member agency that sets postal rates.

Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (PRA) — Statute that established USPS as an independent federal

agency.

Postmaster — The manager in charge of a post office.

Probationary period — Initial trial period of employment.

Register of eligibles (hiring register) — A list of

applicants for USPS vacancies, ranked by test

scores.

Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable

Solutions Swiftly (REDRESS) — USPS program

that uses mediation as an alternative to resolve equal

employment opportunity complaints.

Rural carrier — A USPS employee assigned to

deliver and collect all mail classes in rural communities lacking convenient postal facilities. The National

Rural Letter Carriers' Association represents more

than 55,000 career rural carriers and 57,000 substitute, associate, auxiliary, and relief carriers.

Threat assessment team (TAT) — Team responsible for identifying threateners, assessing risk, and

developing plans to reduce risk.

Veterans' preference — Preference in hiring and

other aspects of federal employment provided by

law to certain veterans who are disabled or who

served on active duty in the armed forces during

certain specified time periods or in military campaigns.

Voice of the Business (VOB) — Financial performance. One of three dimensions of USPS's CustomerPerfect! framework and the Variable Pay Program.
Glossary 59

Voice of the Customer (VOC) — Customer service. One of three dimensions of USPS's CustomerPerfect! framework and the Variable Pay Program.

Voice of the Employee (VOE) — Employee satisfaction and well-being. One of three dimensions of

USPS's CustomerPerfect! framework and the Variable Pay Program.
Endnotes 61

Endnotes

1

 USPS, Postal News, "U.S. Postal Service Commission on A

Safe and Secure Workplace Formed; Headed by Former HEW

Secretary Joseph A. Califano, Jr.," Press Release, October 6,

1998.

2

 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States

1998, Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Department of Justice,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

3 USPS (1999), Annual Report.

4 USPS Diversity Business Plan, January 1999.

5

 Figures from the Commission's survey.

6

 Figures from the Commission's survey.

7

 USPS provided USPS figures on veterans' preference. The

percentages of veterans at USPS and in the national

workforce are from the Commission's survey. Federal figures

are from "Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics: Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce as of 9/30/98," Office of Personnel Management, p. 6.

8

 United Parcel Service: Definitive Proxy Statement

DEFA14A, Filed 3/22/00, Table 2, www.FreeEdgar.com.

Federal Express: Definitive Proxy Statement DEFA14A,

Filed 8/16/99, Table 5, www.FreeEdgar.com.

9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Census of Fatal Occupational

Injuries Summary," U.S. Department of Labor, Press Release

August 4, 1999, "Occupational Injuries and Illnesses and

Work-Related Fatalities, Technical Note," Compensation and

Working Conditions, Winter 1999, and Eric F. Sygnatur and

Guy A. Toscano, "Work-Related Homicides: The Facts,"

Compensation and Working Conditions, Spring 2000.

10 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the United

States, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide.

11 American Dialect Society, Words of the Year,

www.americandialect.org, January 27, 2000.

12 Postal Life, January 1997.

13 Washington Post, November 7, 1999, p. A3.

14 Washington Post, January 13, 2000, p. E5.

15 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 9, 2000,

www.postnet.com.

16 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, January 13, 1999, p. B1.

17 Mansfield News Journal, October 27, 1999, p. 5A.

18 Postal Link, December 11, 1998.

19 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,

"Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary," August 4,

1999 (press release) and Guy Toscano and Janice A. Windau,

"Profile of Fatal Work Injuries in 1996," Compensation and

Working Conditions, Spring 1998, pp. 37-45.

20 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on all

workplace fatalities, including homicides, using death certificates, workers' compensation records, and reports to federal

and state agencies. The data, known as the Census of Fatal

Occupational Injuries (CFOI), include fatalities that occur

while the victim is "at work; on the work premises; while in

work status; or due to an association with the decedent's employment, including interpersonal interactions, even if the

incident occurs outside of the workplace." (Eric F. Sygnatur

and Guy A. Toscano, "Work-Related Homicides: The Facts,"

Compensation and Working Conditions Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring

2000.) The data identify the victim's occupation and industry

and the victim's relationship with the offender, if known.

To compare homicide rates at USPS with homicides nationally, we combined the CFOI data with BLS data on the number of workers by industry. We made corrections to the CFOI

data on postal homicides based on information from the

Postal Inspection Service. Specifically, we reclassified two

cases in which the CFOI incorrectly classified the victims as

postal employees and added one case the CFOI missed.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) began collecting data on workplace deaths earlier

than the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The NIOSH data begin in

1980 but extend only through 1995. The NIOSH database is

derived from death certificates only, and is less complete than

the CFOI, including 14 percent fewer cases for the years in

which both data sources are available. In addition, the NIOSH

database does not identify current or former coworkers as

perpetrators. For these reasons, we relied primarily on the

CFOI data.

A published analysis of the NIOSH data ("Occupational Injury Deaths of Postal Workers, United States, 1980-1989,"

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, Vol. 43, No. 32,

587-595, 1994) found that the rate of workplace homicide for

postal employees was the same as the national rate for 1983-

1989 (0.6 per 100,000). However, the postal rate for this period was heavily influenced by one incident in which 14

postal employees were killed. Excluding this one extreme

case would reduce the postal rate to 0.4 per 100,000, close to

the rate of 0.3 per 100,000 for the 1992-1998 period.

21 In the Standard Industry Classification, USPS is included

under Transportation. Our calculations exclude USPS from

Transportation in order to show it separately. Following

Standard Industry Classification guidelines, private postal

services include the following Standard Industrial Classification categories: private postal services primarily engaged in
62 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

the delivery of unaddressed advertising materials; direct mail

advertising services; local trucking with and without storage;

trucking except local; courier services, except by air; air

transportation; and air courier services. These categories fall

under a number of major industries, and in our calculations

they are included within these major industries and are shown

separately as well.

22 Calculations using 1992-1998 CFOI.

23 Calculations using 1992-1998 CFOI.

24 Calculations using 1992-1998 CFOI.

25 Eric F. Sygnatur and Guy A. Toscano, "Work-Related

Homicides: The Facts," Compensation and Working Conditions, Spring 2000.

26 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States

1998, Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C.

27 Some published reports do not clearly distinguish between

homicides committed by perpetrators known to be nonemployees, and homicides committed by unknown perpetrators, e.g., "National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries,

1997," Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1997: A Collection of

Data and Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1999.

28 We included in our analysis all homicides meeting the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of a work-related fatality, as

well as one case in which the perpetrator was a postal employee who was on duty and on site at the time of the homicide, but the victim was not a postal employee.

29 This description is based on news accounts.

30 Jeffrey W. Swanson et al., "Violence and Psychiatric Disorder in the Community: Evidence from the Epidemiologic

Catchment Area Surveys," Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol. 41, No. 7, July 1990.

31 Delbert Elliott, "Youth Violence: An Overview," CSPV

Paper 008, www.colorado.edu/cspv/infohour/youthviolence.html, paper presented at the Aspen Institute's Children's Policy Forum, "Children and Violence Conference,"

February 18-21, 1994, Queenstown, Maryland, Delbert

Elliott, "Violent Offending Over the Life Course: A Sociological Perspective," prepared for Office of Behavioral and

Social Science Research, Rockville, Maryland, June 16, 1996,

revised September 1998.

32 This description is based on news accounts.

33 USPS does not keep statistics on veterans; only veterans'

preference, a narrower category, is tracked. Therefore this

comparison uses workforce figures from the Commission's

1999 survey of postal employees. In 1999, 29 percent of

postal employees were preference-eligible veterans, compared

with 35 percent who were veterans in the survey. The actual

proportion of postal employees who were veterans during the

1986-1999 period is probably higher than the 1999 figure

used here, since preference-eligible veterans (and presumably

veterans) have been declining as a proportion of the USPS

workforce over the period. This means that the difference

between veterans as a proportion of male perpetrators and

veteran as a proportion of the male workforce is likely smaller

than estimated here.

34 The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at

Columbia University, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and

America's Prison Population, New York, January, 1998.

35 Calculations using 1998 National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS).

36 Calculations using 1993-1998 NCVS.

37 Calculations using 1993-1998 NCVS.

38 The most important difference in design between our survey and the NCVS is that ours is a one-time survey, whereas

the NCVS interviews the same people over and over. When

the NCVS asks a respondent whether an event has happened

in the past six months, the period is bounded by a previous

interview. So respondents are not likely to include events that

might have happened, say, seven or eight months ago. In a

one-time survey there is no such boundary, and people may

"telescope" their memory of events, including earlier events

when asked about experiences in the past year. In addition,

the NCVS uses in-person and telephone interviewing, and

focuses on criminal behavior. While it is not possible to

quantify the effects of each of these differences, they prevent

valid comparisons between our survey and the NCVS.

39 Arnold H. Buss and Mark Perry, "The Aggression Questionnaire," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1992, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 452-459.

40 Government employees include respondents in the national

sample who reported working in standard industrial classification categories including executive offices, legislative bodies, executive and legislative offices combined, and general

government; courts, police enforcement, legal counsel and

prosecution, correctional institutions, fire protection, and

other public order and safety; and national security and international affairs.

41 Cases with insufficient evidence to warrant administrative

or other action are not included.

42 National Coordination Audit: USPS Hiring Practices,

January, 1997, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Case No. 034-

1186646-PA(1).

National Hiring Practices Review, Postal Inspection Service,

November 1994.

Employee Background Checks, General Accounting Office,

September 1993.
Endnotes 63

Audit Report: USPS Hiring Process, Final Report, U.S.

Postal Inspection Service, September ,1992, 026-1084324-

AO(1).

Postal Service: Screening for Applicants for Employment,

General Accounting Office, June 1988.

Postal Service Employment, General Accounting Office, June

1988.

43 USPS, Threat Assessment Team Guide, Publication 108,

May 1997.

44 Grammar and punctuation edited for clarity.

45 Joseph Kinney and Barbara Lambert. National Safe Workplace Institute, Mandating Psychological Evaluation of Employees, NSWI Best Practice, No. 96-1, 1996.

46 Towards Postal Excellence, The Report of the President's

Commission on Postal Organization, Annex (Contractors'

Reports) Volume 1, p. 61.

47 U.S. General Accounting Office, Labor-Management

Problems Persist on the Workroom Floor, Washington, D.C.,

September 1994.

48 USPS OIG, USPS Labor and Management Workplace Disputes, March 31, 1999, LR-AR-99-001. Estimate attributed to

Postmaster General Marvin Runyon.

49 U.S. General Accounting Office, Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters: Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in EEO Complaint Caseloads in the Federal Sector, July 1998.

50 Lisa B. Bingham and Mikaela Cristina Novac, "Mediation's

Impact on Formal Discrimination Complaint Filing: Before

and After the REDRESS Program at the United States Postal

Service," submitted to the International Association of Conflict Management Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, June 18-

21, 2000, and Mary S. Elcano, "Overview of REDRESS Mediation Program," Brown & Wood LLP, June 2000.

51 Mary S. Elcano, "Overview of REDRESS Mediation Program," Brown & Wood LLP, June 2000.
Introduction............................................................................................................. ..63

Selection, Orientation, and Probationary Period................................................. ..64

RECRUITMENT................................................................................................ ..64

TESTING ......................................................................................................... ..64

SCREENING AND SELECTION........................................................................... ..64

VETERANS' PREFERENCE................................................................................ ..66

IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................... ..67

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..67

NEW EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION ...................................................................... ..69

PROBATIONARY PERIOD ................................................................................. ..69

Zero Tolerance for Violence................................................................................... ..70

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..70

Violence Awareness Training................................................................................. ..72

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..72

Threat Assessment and Crisis Management......................................................... ..73

THREAT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... ..73

Threat Assessment Team Audits........................................................ ..73

Perceptions........................................................................................ ..74

FITNESS-FOR-DUTY EXAMINATIONS TO ASSESS DANGEROUSNESS ................ ..74

Perceptions........................................................................................ ..76

CRISIS MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... ..76

Communications During a Crisis...................................................... ..77

Perceptions........................................................................................ ..77

Systems for Monitoring Violence and Potential Violence ................................... ..78

WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT INDICATORS ...................................................... ..78

TROUBLED WORK SITE IDENTIFICATION......................................................... ..78

SHARING LESSONS FROM LOCAL EXPERIENCE ............................................... ..78

NATIONAL ASSAULT AND THREAT REPORTING SYSTEM................................. ..79

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INFORMATION SYSTEM............................ ..79

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL..................................................................... ..79

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..79

Security..................................................................................................................... ..81

SECURITY AUDIT............................................................................................ ..82

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..82

Employee Assistance Program............................................................................... ..83

JOINT UNION-MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ...................................................... ..83

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE INTERVENTION ANALYST ........................................ ..84

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..84

Terminations............................................................................................................ ..86

TRAINING FOR MANAGERS ............................................................................. ..86

Appendix A: Policies and Practices

Appendix A Policies and Practices 61
ARBITRATION DECISIONS ............................................................................... ..86

Management Skills.................................................................................................. ..87

TRAINING ....................................................................................................... ..87

COMMUNICATION........................................................................................... ..87

ASSOCIATE SUPERVISOR PROGRAM ............................................................... ..87

SUPERVISOR KNOWLEDGE OF UNION CONTRACTS ......................................... ..88

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..88

Substance Abuse...................................................................................................... ..91

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. ..92

Dispute Resolution .................................................................................................. ..93

GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION...................................................................... ..93

Alternative Procedures and Efforts to Prevent Grievances.............. ..95

Perceptions........................................................................................ ..95

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION .................. ..96

Mediation: The REDRESS Program................................................. ..97

Formal Complaint............................................................................. ..97

Implementation.................................................................................. ..98

Perceptions........................................................................................ ..98

RELATIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNION OFFICIALS ........................ ..99

Perceptions........................................................................................ 100

Incentives for Managers: Variable Pay Program and

 Merit Performance Evaluation ........................................................................... 102

VARIABLE PAY PROGRAM.............................................................................. 102

Perceptions........................................................................................ 103

MERIT PERFORMANCE.................................................................................... 104

Perceptions........................................................................................ 104

Incentives for Craft Employees.............................................................................. 105

PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................. 105

WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR CRAFT EMPLOYEES.... 105

Endnotes................................................................................................................... 107

62 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Introduction

The Commission examined policies and practices in

a wide range of areas potentially related to

workplace violence:

* Policies related to new employees, including

their selection, screening, orientation, and probationary period;

* Policies aimed at preventing violence, including

zero tolerance for violence, violence awareness

training, threat assessment and crisis

management, systems for monitoring violence

and potential violence, security, the employee

assistance program, and policies for handling

terminations;

* Policies and practices not primarily designed to

address violence, but that might tend to foster or

inhibit violence, including management skills,

substance abuse, dispute resolution and labormanagement relations, incentives for managers,

and incentives for craft employees.

This appendix describes postal policies in these

areas, how they are implemented, and the

perceptions of craft employees, supervisors and

managers, and union officials.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 63
Selection, Orientation, and Probationary Period

Most hiring for bargaining unit employees (known

as craft employees) is from registers of applicants,

ranked according to scores on cognitive tests.

Certain veterans receive preference points, and some

preference-eligible veterans have appeal rights.

Selection is based on applicants' register scores,

applications, background checks, and interviews.

There are no education requirements for craft

positions.1 A number of improvements have

addressed problems in the implementation of

required background checks. USPS hires hundreds

of thousands of employees each year. For example,

in 1999 USPS hired 35,636 career employees and

180,798 non-career employees.

RECRUITMENT

Historically, postal jobs have been sought after, and

USPS has not had to recruit applicants generally.

However, USPS has recruited to achieve affirmative

action goals. Generally, advertising has been

minimal, consisting of announcements posted in post

office customer lobbies. In the current tight labor

market, however, more recruitment efforts have

been necessary.

Interested applicants fill out a card providing contact

information and stating whether they claim veterans'

preference. All applicants are then notified of postal

exams. Typically 50 to 70 percent show up for the

test. It might take up to six months to complete

testing for applicants responding to an

advertisement.

TESTING

The Postal Service entrance exams are paper-andpencil cognitive tests of skills related to Postal

Service work such as perceptual speed and

accuracy, ability to follow oral directions, and

address matching. USPS carried out studies in the

1980s validating the tests as predictors of job

performance. A few years ago, separate tests for

different crafts were combined into one test battery,

which is used for 95 percent of the craft jobs filled

from outside the Postal Service. There are separate

tests for specialty positions, such as secretaries and

mechanics.

Applicants must score at least 70 out of 100 to be

eligible for postal employment. Tests are scored by

the National Test Administration Center, which is

part of the USPS human resources function and

sends scores to the district. District staff then notify

applicants whether they are eligible and provide their

test score if they are eligible. For those who claimed

veterans' preference, the notice also tells them how

many points will be added to their score if

preference applies. Generally, about 30 percent of

applicants are eligible for veterans' preference.

Applicants may take the test over when it is opened

again to the public, which is generally every couple

of years.

The list of applicants, ranked by score and veterans'

preference, is called a hiring register. District staff

use the register to create hiring worksheets for

groups of jobs. Eligible applicants are then contacted

in order from the top of the worksheet. They receive

a notice explaining the suitability requirements for

postal employment, a list of documents to bring to

the initial appointment (such as documentation of

immigration and veteran status), and an application

for employment. The notice also explains that

applicants should expect to take a drug test and to

be fingerprinted.

SCREENING AND SELECTION

Screening includes a review of the applicant's work

history and criminal conviction history, a structured

personal interview, drug screening, and a medical

64 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
assessment. Some positions also require a

performance test.

Often, applicants are invited to a pre-employment

orientation, including a tour of the job site and a

video describing and showing the work. Applicants

may turn in application paperwork at the orientation

session, and human resources staff may begin

screening activities at that point.

Since 1995, background checks have been split into

two parts. Some checks are carried out by human

resources personnel before an employment offer.

Other checks are carried out by a contractor during

the probationary period after hiring. The background

checks were split into two parts because USPS staff

found that conducting all the checks at the preemployment stage was unrealistic and did not

generate useful information for hiring decisions. As a

result, in many cases a conscious decision about

hiring was never made; paperwork just moved

along. Checking employment records was

particularly frustrating, because many previous

employers were difficult to reach or reluctant to

provide information. The background checks now

conducted at the pre-employment stage are those

believed to be both most useful in determining

suitability for hiring and feasible for human

resources staff to carry out.

At the pre-employment stage, human resources staff

should request the official personnel folder for any

applicants with previous federal employment. Local

police records and verification of veteran status from

the Department of Veterans Affairs should also be

requested at this stage. In some states, local police

records must be requested from the applicant

because state law prohibits their disclosure to

anyone else. In reviewing criminal history, USPS

considers seriousness, recency, and acts of theft or

violence. It focuses on convictions, not arrests,

because of legal restrictions. The applicant should

also be scheduled for a urinalysis drug test at this

point. The test checks for marijuana, cocaine, PCP,

amphetamines, and opiates. Typically, about three to

five percent of applicants nationally are rejected on

the basis of drug test results.

After these screening steps, district human resources

staff conduct a structured interview with each

applicant still considered suitable. The structured

interview was introduced in 1995. The purpose of

the interview is to inform the applicant about the job

requirements and conditions, to verify information

provided in application materials, and to collect

additional information. In addition to helping

determine eligibility for employment, the interview is

intended to determine the fit between the applicant

and the job, based on past experience and

performance. Interview guidelines list relevant

dimensions to consider, including past work settings

and job content, conscientiousness, adaptability,

cooperation, communication, and customer service.

All selecting officials receive training in interview

skills.

Generally, human resources staff manage the

selection process and managers are involved in the

interview process. Ultimately, senior human resources staff make the final selection decisions. For

any one job, an applicant is picked from among the

top three scorers on the relevant list (the "rule of

three"). Applicants may be disqualified for something specific, such as a recent conviction or lying on

the job application. Even without specific disqualifying factors, an applicant who is passed over three

times is no longer considered qualified. Special rules

governing preference-eligible veterans are described

below.

Once hiring decisions have been made, USPS makes

offers in writing to applicants. At this point, medical

suitability is assessed. Like other public and private

employers, USPS is legally prohibited from

gathering medical information until a job offer has

been made. Under current policy, potential

employees fill out a medical assessment

questionnaire. USPS occupational health nurses

review the questionnaires and identify those that

require an exam, to be carried out by a doctor under

contract with USPS.

Once potential employees have passed the medical

screening, they receive their appointments. At this

time, the post-employment background check

Appendix A Policies and Practices 65
(known as the special agency check) is initiated.

USPS sends application materials and fingerprints to

the federal Office of Personnel Management, which

carries out the special agency check through a

private subcontractor. The special agency check

covers prior federal investigations, military records

including court-martials and other adverse actions,

out-of-state criminal records going back five years,

and confirmation of previous employment and

reasons for leaving. The results of the special agency

check should be provided within 45 days, well

within the 90-day probationary period for new

employees. If the results show that an application

included false information, the employee may be

terminated. According to the national collective

bargaining agreements, if an employee lies on an

employment application, USPS may fire the

employee even if the falsification is discovered after

the probationary period. In such cases the termination would be subject to the grievance and

arbitration process.

If an applicant was discharged from the military with

anything other than an honorable discharge— for

example, a discharge under honorable conditions or

other less favorable terms— the special agency check

investigates the reasons. These might include

behavior that would likely affect USPS's hiring

decision, such as insubordination, or behavior that

might not affect USPS's hiring decision, such as

homosexuality or adultery.

If the special agency check yields no derogatory

information, the results are sent directly to human

resources staff. If there is derogatory information,

the results are sent to the Postal Inspection Service

first. The Inspection Service reviews the results and

shares appropriate information with human

resources.

In 1998, 79 percent of special agency checks yielded

no derogatory information. Six percent revealed an

employment issue, and 15 percent revealed an issue

involving legal or military history or previous federal

employment. The majority of the information

revealed would not have altered the hiring decision

and does not lead to separation. Examples of such

information are minor infractions early in a long

military career or convictions for civil disobedience

or jaywalking. Examples of derogatory information

that probably would lead to firing are having been

incarcerated but not stating so on the employment

application or convictions for theft or the sale of

drugs. Decisions based on background information

typically consider the recency and seriousness of

behavior and its relevance to the job.

VETERANS' PREFERENCE

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 relieved

USPS from most laws and regulations governing

personnel matters in federal agencies, except for

veterans' preference. In dealing with preferenceeligible veterans, USPS is subject to the same laws

and regulations as other federal agencies. In

practice, veterans' preference is more salient in the

Postal Service than in most other federal agencies

because of the large number of people the Postal

Service hires and the formal nature of the hiring

process.

Rules governing eligibility for veterans' preference

are set by statute and by regulations of the federal

Office of Personnel Management. In general,

veterans are considered preference-eligible if they

served during a war or campaign (but not necessarily

in combat) or if they have a service-connected

disability. They must be discharged under honorable

conditions. In some cases, preference extends to the

spouse, widow, or mother of a veteran. Five points

are added to an applicant's exam score if the

applicant served in a war or campaign. Ten points

are added if the applicant has a service-connected

disability. In addition, 10-point veterans whose

service-connected disability is compensable are

placed ahead of all other applicants on the hiring

register. A disability is compensable if the veteran is

receiving compensation through a branch of the

military or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Applicants who score less than 70 on the entrance

exam (before any points are added) are not eligible

for postal employment, regardless of veteran status.

66 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
If a preference-eligible veteran is passed over in the

selection process, justification must be made in

writing. In addition, a preference-eligible veteran

with a compensable disability of 30 percent or more

who is passed over is entitled to an automatic review

by the Office of Personnel Management. In fiscal

1998, there were 39 such reviews. Eleven USPS

decisions were reversed, eleven decisions were

upheld, and 17 cases were discontinued.

IMPLEMENTATION

Reviews of hiring practices carried out by the Postal

Inspection Service and the General Accounting

Office from 1988 through 1997 found problems in

implementing required background checks. For

example, a 1992 Postal Inspection Service audit2

found that local police checks were not conducted

for 55 percent of the hires reviewed, state police

checks were not conducted for 70 percent of the

sample, and FBI records were not checked for more

than half of the sample. National efforts to improve

pre-hire screening have included the development of

specific screening and selection requirements in

1990 and the restructuring of the hiring process in

1995. A 1997 Inspection Service audit found that, in

general, hiring offices obtained the required local

police check and drug screen and conducted an

interview. However, this audit found that 30 percent

of new hires did not have a special agency check

requested by the hiring office.3

 In addition, in

interviews with Commission staff, some hiring

officials commented that delays sometimes occur

when the Inspection Service receives derogatory

information from a background check and does not

pass it on to human resources staff immediately.

USPS is currently working to improve the special

agency check process, looking at compliance with

the process, common errors in filling out forms, and

quality of fingerprints:

* Compliance. Officials believe compliance may

be better than reported, and are working on

improving record keeping.

* Errors in forms. USPS is developing

instructions for applicants to reduce common

errors in filling out forms that can delay

background checks.

* Fingerprinting. USPS is testing new

fingerprinting equipment that assesses the quality

of fingerprints immediately, reducing delays from

unclassifiable fingerprints.

The Commission's review of homicides by USPS

employees revealed that several perpetrators— at

least five out of 17— should never have been hired in

the first place. The ongoing improvements in

background checks should make such mistakes less

likely. In addition, interviews with hiring officials in

several performance clusters suggest that officials

today are knowledgeable and alert regarding military

and criminal history.

PERCEPTIONS

Many managers believe the hiring system has

improved over the past few years. However, some

craft employees and managers believe problems

remain. One postmaster said that the Postal Service

is "hiring the best of the worst" and that "hiring

policies don't allow us to hire the best qualified."

Many believe that the entrance exams ensure that

high-quality workers are hired. One mail handler

said employees "have to pass an exam so USPS

hires people who are smart for the postal system."

On the other hand, some think that the selection

process relies too heavily on test scores and not

enough on experience. One human resources

manager commented that selecting officials need

more flexibility not to hire someone. "We need more

flexibility not to hire someone without having to

justify it— for example, based on a subjective

reaction to an interview." Although policies permit

skipping over a candidate based on the rule of three,

many selecting officials do not feel that they have

enough discretion. A postmaster said that the Postal

Service "should hire more like the private industry

and not with the rule of three because we're not

getting the best people for the job." Additional

Appendix A Policies and Practices 67
comments included "hiring is set up so that we hire

people we know should not be hired" and "the hiring

procedures force us to hire dangerous people."

Many managers feel that the Postal Service cannot

be selective in hiring because it needs workers,

especially in the current tight labor market. A human

resources manager said that "because of the high

need for employees, they often have to hire people

that seem risky. With the tight labor market, we

can't be as selective." Another manager agreed and

said that the Postal Service "tends to bend the rules

when we're in a crunch." A postal inspector

commented, "Management calls and says that they

need workers immediately, so hiring procedures are

overlooked and people are hired without being

screened. There's one guy who works nights who

was convicted of attempted murder and he was

hired."

Some supervisors feel that because non-career

employees have already been screened and trained,

they should be given special consideration in the

hiring process for permanent positions. One

supervisor said, "Casuals who do a good job should

be given consideration for hiring. It makes our job

harder, once a person is trained, to let them go."

There is a widely held perception among postal

employees that veterans are responsible for many of

the incidents of violence in the Postal Service. Many

managers, supervisors, and craft employees are

therefore critical of the preference given to veterans

in hiring. Many feel that veterans have psychological

problems. One mail handler commented, "One of my

counterparts is a Vietnam vet— I walked up behind

him and tapped him on the shoulder to let him know

I was in back of him— when I did this I was hit in

the jaw. He just responded because I touched him."

One manager said that the Postal Service is "hiring

poor applicants because of veterans' preference. We

are hiring people who have mental illnesses and can't

deal with stress, so they get PTSD [post-traumatic

stress disorder], which leads to violence." A

postmaster said he feels that "the Postal Service has

the most deadly workforce because of veterans."

Apart from fears related to violence, some

supervisors and craft employees simply feel that

veterans' preference is unfair. One postmaster said,

"I am a veteran and I think it's archaic, having to

give preference to veterans." A facility manager

reported that because veterans get extra points, the

worthy applicants cannot be hired: "The best

employees usually score in the 80s and we can't

usually hire them because of the vets." One facility

manager commented, "We barely screen vets,

because we know we have no choice, and they have

the most problems and they're impossible to fire."

Some hiring officials interviewed believed they could

sustain a decision to pass over a veteran if the

decision was based on legitimate reasons and was

well documented. Some, however, felt that it was

difficult to sustain such decisions. One commented

that "from Office of Personnel Management's

standpoint, they think you should hire everybody."

This person also felt that postal medical officials

were not always well trained in how to document

medical concerns about applicants to OPM. Another

official commented, "We can't get out of [hiring] the

disabled veterans. It takes almost an act of God to

pass over them."

Our analysis of homicides by USPS employees

shows that veterans are not significantly more likely

to commit homicide than other employees, once we

account for the fact that men— who are almost nine

times more likely than women to commit homicide

generally— are the majority of veterans. However,

hiring officials' comments suggest that in some cases

they may make poor hiring decisions because they

misunderstand or are intimidated by the

requirements of veterans' preference. At least one

homicide was committed by an employee who was

hired for this reason.

Many of the interview and focus group participants

feel that the hiring process takes too long. Interview

and focus group participants commented that the

background checks take too long. Several

supervisors and managers reported that criminal

records are often discovered after employees are

hired and sometimes after the probationary period is

68 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
over, making it difficult to fire the employee. A

postal inspector commented that "the local record

checks are not done in a timely manner and the

applicants are being hired anyway. There are two

cases where we found out the employees were

convicted criminals, but it was too late because they

had already passed the 90-day probationary period."

We reviewed a case in which arbitration overturned

the firing of an employee who failed to report a

homicide conviction on his application. When the

criminal record was discovered, USPS fired the

employee for falsifying his application. The

employee filed a grievance, and the termination was

overturned in arbitration. The arbitrator based his

decision in part on the fact that USPS managers did

not act for several months after the conviction was

discovered. The arbitrator reasoned that managers

must not have considered the employee dangerous,

because they did not act immediately. This example

highlights both the importance of completing

background checks on time and the importance of

using the information that is uncovered.

NEW EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION

All new Postal Service employees receive a formal

one-and-one-half day orientation. The program is

intended to teach employees about benefits, leave

rules, the zero tolerance policy, equal employment

opportunity, diversity, sexual harassment, and other

information. Typically, local union officials address

craft employees during the orientation.

USPS is currently revising the new employee

orientation process. Many other employers use the

new employee orientation to indoctrinate new

employees into the culture of the organization rather

than focusing on the functions of the job. These

employers cover the history and traditions of their

organization, its values, and its business objectives.

In addition, some organizations follow up with new

employees after the orientation. USPS's orientation

is shorter and more narrowly focused than that

offered by some other large employers. Some focus

group participants commented that the orientation

seemed inadequate and, as a result, they felt they

started their USPS career on the wrong foot.

PROBATIONARY PERIOD

USPS employees tend to stay a long time. Postal

employees are twice as likely as employees

nationally to have worked for the same employer for

more than ten years (59 vs. 29 percent).

4

 Moreover,

USPS employees have many protections against

firing, including the grievance and arbitration

procedures and other appeal processes. For these

reasons, a career job offer represents a significant

commitment on the part of USPS. While many

private employers do not use a formal probationary

period at all, they typically have higher turnover and

face fewer constraints on firing employees.

Supervisors are supposed to evaluate new craft

employees three times during the 90-day

probationary period, with reviews by the next level

of management. These are the only performance

evaluations craft employees ever receive. However,

it appears that they do not always occur. According

to one official, evaluations are often completed pro

forma, "on day 89." A number of postal managers

suggested lengthening the probationary period.

According to one, "Anyone can get through three

months. A year would help you detect attendance or

performance problems."

Appendix A Policies and Practices 69
Zero Tolerance for Violence

In February 1992, USPS management and most of

the employee organizations issued a joint statement

on violence and behavior in the workplace. All of

the management associations and all of the unions

except the American Postal Workers Union signed

the statement. USPS has since issued a zero

tolerance policy that echoes the joint statement. The

policy states that

... each and every act or threat of violence,

regardless of the initiator, will elicit an

immediate and firm response, which could

involve discipline up to and including

removal.5

Each of the 85 performance clusters is responsible

for creating a local zero tolerance policy. Postal

policy also prohibits firearms in the workplace.

The 1992 joint statement was published in the Postal

Bulletin, which is sent to all facilities and posted on

bulletin boards. The zero tolerance policy is stated in

the Threat Assessment Team Guide and is discussed

in violence awareness training materials. It is also

discussed during orientation for new employees and

in a video on workplace environment viewed by all

employees during FY2000.

The national zero tolerance policy does not define

threats or violence or specify consequences for

particular acts. Some local zero tolerance policies

are more specific. USPS does not follow a set

formula to determine discipline in general. A

disciplinary database was established at one time,

but it was used only sporadically. Training materials

instruct supervisors to consider the following factors

in determining appropriate discipline:

* the seriousness of the offense,

* the employee's awareness,

* the employee's explanation,

* the employee's previous disciplinary record, and

* the degree of discipline issued to similarly

situated employees.

PERCEPTIONS

Most employees— 78 percent in our survey— are

aware of the policy of zero tolerance for violence.

Eighty-eight percent of employees believe they

would be disciplined for threats and assaults, about

the same as the proportion in the total national

workforce (87 percent). But postal employees are

three times as likely as the total national workforce

to believe that it is hard to fire employees for threats

or violence (38 vs. 13 percent). Sixty-one percent of

all postal employees believe zero tolerance is

effective, but assessments differ among employee

groups. Seventy-seven percent of postmasters

believe zero tolerance is effective, and 70 percent of

other managers and rural carriers think so. Smaller

proportions of mail handlers, city letter carriers, and

employees represented by the APWU believe the

policy is effective (55, 56, and 53 percent,

respectively).

Postal employees also have concerns about how

fairly zero tolerance is applied. Eighty-six percent of

postmasters and 82 percent of rural carriers believe

the policy is applied fairly. Sixty-five percent of

other managers think so, as do 62 percent of city

carriers and 57 percent of APWU employees. Only

44 percent of mail handlers believe zero tolerance is

applied fairly.

In a 1997 USPS evaluation of workplace violence

awareness training, participants felt that definitions

for threats, responses, and consequences were

poorly articulated.6

 In particular, the policy of zero

tolerance for violence was seen as poorly

understood and unevenly applied.

70 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
In the Commission's focus groups with craft

employees, laughter was a common reaction to

questions about zero tolerance for violence. Some

employees believe the policy is a "joke" and

ineffective: "We don't have zero tolerance. We have

99 percent tolerance." While some employees think

the policy has worked to reduce violence, others feel

that it is unreasonable, not enforced, or too

aggressive. Implementation of the policy is

perceived as inconsistent and favorable to managers.

Many employees believe that supervisors are given

more latitude than craft employees. Some union

representatives share this view, although some feel

the policy is effective.

Some supervisors also reacted with laughter when

asked about the policy of zero tolerance for

violence. Many feel the policy is unreasonable and

inconsistently applied. Some supervisors also believe

that craft employees get away with violations and

that terminations that result from violence are

overturned during the arbitration process. Another

common complaint is that there is no support from

upper management when it comes to enforcing the

policy.

Many senior managers interviewed think the policy

is effective, that it has helped the USPS

communicate standards for behavior, and that it has

reduced incidents of aggressive behavior. One

official said, "The bar is continually being raised for

what constitutes acceptable behavior. More and

more, employees speak up when they hear idle

threats." Other managers believe the policy is being

used and understood inconsistently. One senior

manager perceives that the unions do not support

zero tolerance and think it is a one-way street. Some

managers also complain that disciplinary actions

resulting from the policy are overturned in

arbitration. Other criticisms are that supervisors do

not use it properly, it is not enforced, and it is too

reactive.

Perceptions about the zero tolerance policy mirror

perceptions about discipline generally. In addition,

some supervisors feel overwhelmed by admi nistrative duties and believe they do not have enough time

to follow through on disciplinary actions. Other

barriers to effective discipline include concerns

about losing employees (and falling behind on

operational goals) and fear of retaliation by employees. Some managers think supervisors have

insufficient training or communication skills to discipline effectively. Many supervisors complain that

there is no support from upper management when

actions are taken to arbitration. "I've tried writing

them up; nothing happens. Supervisors get frustrated, so they look the other way."

Appendix A Policies and Practices 71
Violence Awareness Training

Compared with other organizations visited by

Commission staff, the Postal Service has very

comprehensive workplace violence awareness

programs. Some organizations offer training only to

their managers, and other organizations have no

programs. The Postal Service has two national

workplace violence awareness programs. Both

introduce the problem of workplace violence to

employees and provide them with tools to prevent it.

The first program is an eight-hour awareness course

that has been offered to all postmasters, supervisors,

managers, and local union leaders. It was initiated in

1996. More than 60,000 postmasters, supervisors,

and managers (more than 71 percent of non-craft

employees) participated in 2,773 classes. Some

union officials also participated, although there is no

documentation of the extent of union participation.

Elements of the program have been incorporated

into training for new supervisors and other

management training programs. The second program is a one-hour presentation for craft employees

and new employees. This program was introduced in

the fall of 1999.

The awareness program for managers reviews

warning signs of workplace violence, strategies to

prevent it, anger management, crisis management

planning, and resources such as the Postal Inspection Service and threat assessment teams. The

awareness program for craft employees consists of

seven parts, which can be presented in one session

or separately at weekly safety talks by supervisors.

In FY2000, four hours of workplace environment

training are required for all craft and management

employees, including a national video message that

counts for one hour. The remaining three hours are

to be developed at the area and district level,

including an hour (for craft) or two hours (for

management) devoted to sexual harassment

prevention training. The areas and districts may

choose to use the workplace violence awareness

program to fulfill one hour of this requirement. The

FY2000 mandatory workplace environment training

is the only required training for craft employees in

interpersonal skills.

USPS has consulted the unions in developing these

programs, but they are not joint programs.

PERCEPTIONS

The Commission's survey shows that 44 percent of

postmasters and 69 percent of other managers say

they have participated in workplace violence

training. Fifteen to 19 percent of craft employees say

they have participated. The national program for

craft employees was just being introduced at the

time of our survey, so these craft employees presumably participated in locally developed programs.

Among those participating, more than 80 percent

rate the programs favorably. The positive ratings are

similar across management and craft employee

groups.

In 1997, USPS assessed the workplace violence

awareness program for managers. Focus groups

with participants showed that the program was

regarded as useful and effective in elevating awareness of contributing factors, warning signs, and

responses to potential and actual workplace violence. Participants saw a need to extend the program

to craft employees and to provide follow-up or

refresher courses.

72 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Threat Assessment and Crisis Management

In 1997, USPS developed procedures for threat

assessment and crisis management. Each of the 85

performance clusters is required to maintain a threat

assessment team (TAT) and a crisis management

team (CMT). A TAT has been established for

headquarters, and a headquarters CMT is under

development. The TAT's purpose is to assess threats

and develop plans to reduce the risk of violence. The

purpose of crisis management is to respond to

violent incidents by caring for victims and their

families and establishing an orderly return to normal

operations. Some of the same staff participate in the

two teams, such as medical staff, human resources

staff, and employee workplace intervention analysts.

The threat assessment handbook mentions employee

representatives as ad hoc resources. The crisis

management handbook does not mention a role for

employee organizations. However, in at least one

USPS district, unions participate in the crisis

management and threat assessment teams.

THREAT ASSESSMENT

At a minimum, local TATs are supposed to meet

once each quarter. All TAT members are supposed

to attend a two-day orientation. The threat

assessment process includes collecting information,

assessing risk, and assisting management in

developing plans to reduce the potential for

violence.

The Office of Workplace Environment Improvement

at headquarters provides guidance for TATs. Staff

respond to questions from TATs and facilitate

training. Monitoring of TATs occurs at the area

level, and TAT data are stored at the local level.

Activity is not tracked or monitored at the national

level. There was discussion of creating a national

system, but the idea was deemed cost-prohibitive

and unnecessary.

Management's ability to defuse volatile situations by

transferring employees is limited because most craft

positions are filled through a strict seniority system

governed by the national agreements. Employees

transferring between facilities lose seniority and may

have to switch to a less desirable shift or function.

One employee wrote to the Commission explaining

that the man who had sexually abused her when she

was a child was a regular customer at her post

office. She refused an offered transfer because it

would mean a change in shift and a longer commute.

An employee who chose to transfer wrote, "I used

to work for the ... district, this is where I saw a

numerous amount of violence. I have moved in the

last year and transferred to the... district, they do

treat employees like people. No violence here. The

only stress is that when you transfer from one place

to another you must become a PTF [part-time

flexible] which means no set schedule— all crazy

hours— and you must work six days a week. This

creates a lot of stress on your home life." 7

Threat Assessment Team Audits

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is conducting

a series of audits of violence prevention activities in

28 USPS performance clusters. Two audits were

available as this report was submitted, covering the

Milwaukee and Suncoast performance clusters.8

They noted that the performance clusters did not

follow many of the violence prevention policies and

procedures outlined in the Threat Assessment Team

Guide. For example, in the Suncoast performance

cluster, only two TAT members had received the

TAT orientation training, the TAT did not meet

quarterly, and all employees were not informed of

the existence of the local TAT. Southeast Area

management planned or implemented actions that

OIG considered responsive to the specific issues

identified in the report.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 73
Perceptions

Some TAT members we interviewed were unclear

about their roles or had never participated in TAT

meetings. In some performance clusters, the TAT

did not meet regularly. In some performance

clusters, members consulted other members on an

ad hoc basis only.

Some managers said they are not sure if threat

assessment works. They feel that people are

reluctant to report threats or individual names. On

the other hand, some reported that they have done

the TAT planning and it is working. Others believe

that since the introduction of threat assessment,

employees are less willing to ignore strange behavior

and threats. They believe managers are now

reporting threats more frequently.

However, survey results show that postal employees

are less likely than employees in the national

workforce to report victimization to someone in

authority. More postal employees than employees in

the national workforce reported physical assaults to

no one (33 vs. 27 percent). Fewer postal employees

than employees in the national workforce reported

physical assaults to a supervisor or manager (42 vs.

48 percent), to Inspection Service or security

personnel (5 vs. 8 percent), or to local police (3 vs.

8 percent). In contrast, postal employees were six

times more likely than employees nationally to

report physical assaults to a union official (18 vs. 3

percent).

Threat assessment teams were not well known

among craft employees participating in focus

groups. When asked what they would do if they felt

threatened, some craft employees responded that

they would not report the threat but would instead

handle the situation themselves. Some employees

laughed and scoffed at this question. Other

employees said that if they were threatened, they

would talk to their peers, go to their union, or call

the police. Some craft employees expressed

frustration about reporting threats to management.

Some would not report a threat because they fear

retaliation. Others believe that there is a lack of

response from management and the Postal Inspection Service when they report threats. Several craft

employees said that they would have nowhere to go

if the aggressor was a manager.

The comments included these:

* "I reported a situation to personnel; it was a

week and a half before they called me about it."

* "You can't report it within the office in certain

offices, because there is a clique between the

supervisor and the postmaster. If you report to

the supervisor, he will laugh."

* "What options do we have to report something?

There's no one that seems to be neutral that you

can go to that's not going to cut your throat

later. If you report something, you are going to

get it later on."

* "My supervisor was hollering at me and I went

to his supervisor— he took care of the situation."

* "Sometimes, when you tell a manager, they just

dismiss the issue or tell you to follow

instructions."

* "My supervisor told me to 'just shut the hell up.'

I told her manager; she laughed."

FITNESS-FOR-DUTY EXAMINATIONS

TO ASSESS DANGEROUSNESS

One component of threat assessment may be a

fitness-for-duty examination to assess dangerousness. While fitness-for-duty exams are most

commonly used to assess physical capacity — for

example, after an on-the-job injury— they may also

be used to assess behavioral concerns. USPS uses

fitness-for-duty (FFD) exams to assess dangerousness when there is a question of whether mental

health conditions might make an employee dangerous to himself or others at work. Management may

discipline an employee for refusing a fitness-for-duty

exam. USPS appears to be unusual in having a

systematic approach and national guidelines in this

area.9

74 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
The USPS medical and nursing staff manage the

fitness-for-duty exam process. The national medical

director provides guidance and consultation. Postal

management has developed new draft guidelines for

fitness-for-duty exams, consolidating existing scattered materials to clarify and codify existing policy

and practice.

The draft guidelines state that behavioral reasons for

requesting an exam may include an increase in

unscheduled absences or unexplained lavatory

usage, changes in behavior or work performance

after breaks, changes in behavior toward fellow employees, deterioration in personal hygiene and cleanliness of the work location, or inattention to duties

and deterioration in concentration and memory. It is

the responsibility of the supervisor to request a

fitness-for-duty exam, with concurrence from the

installation head. In most instances, before

requesting a fitness-for-duty exam on the basis of an

employee's behavior, the guidelines suggest the

supervisor should first approach the employee for a

private, confidential discussion, including an offer of

services from the occupational health or employee

assistance programs.

The occupational health nurse administrator and the

labor relations specialist review the request in

consultation with the human resources manager, and

the nurse administrator arranges an appointment if

appropriate. An emergency fitness-for-duty exam

may be arranged immediately in cases of acute

behavior such as substance abuse, direct threats,

altercations, or argumentative behavior.

A manager who suspects that an employee is under

the influence of alcohol or drugs may request an

emergency fitness-for-duty exam. If the exam is

approved, the employee is required to cooperate and

may be disciplined for refusing to cooperate with the

exam. However, according to USPS management,

"the Postal Service has agreed with the postal unions

that decisions about when to administer drug tests

during fitness for duty examinations shall be the

responsibility of medical personnel, not postal

managers or supervisors."10

Physicians employed or selected by USPS carry out

fitness-for-duty exams. All general fitness-for-duty

exams are supposed to include a mental status

evaluation. Typically a psychiatric exam is not

requested without a prior general exam. If the initial

exam suggests a psychiatric evaluation is necessary,

a board-certified psychiatrist, in consultation with

the senior area medical director, should carry out the

exam. In some cases, the examiner may recommend

a referral to a practitioner with experience

evaluating potentially violent individuals. In

assessing dangerousness, examiners should address

questions such as:

* Does the employee pose a threat?

* What is the nature and severity of the potential

harm?

* What is the likelihood that the potential harm

will occur?

* What is the imminence of the potential harm?

* What actions are required to contend with or

relieve the problem?

It is not typical for the examiner to interview management or coworkers. If there are indications of a

direct threat, the examiner should be asked to recommend appropriate actions to protect the

employee and others. If the employee does not

represent a clear and direct threat to an identifiable

target, the examiner should be asked to recommend

treatment or other actions to guard against

deterioration of the condition. Management might

require an employee to receive counseling or might

require the employee to provide ongoing medical

documentation to demonstrate compliance with

treatment. If an employee is found not fit for duty as

a result of drug or alcohol toxicity, the employee is

re-tested before any return to duty.

The nursing and medical staff are responsible for

interpreting the findings and recommendations to

management and to the employee. According to the

guidelines, the national medical director should be

consulted in interpreting all psychiatric fitness-forduty exams.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 75
In some districts, the employee workplace

intervention analyst (EWIA) and other staff develop

a return-to-work plan and coach the supervisor

when an employee is found fit for duty. This practice

is not universal. The rationale for this practice is that

the request for a dangerousness assessment suggests

that there is some problem the supervisor does not

know how to handle, even if the employee is found

fit for duty. The experience of an FFD exam may be

humiliating and difficult for the employee,

aggravating a situation that is already problematic.

The employee may feel victimized, the supervisor

feels his efforts were futile, and neither one has any

improved ability to deal with the problems that led

to the request. A return-to-work plan can address

the pre-existing issues and any difficulties created by

the exam.

Currently training for fitness-for-duty exams is

provided to all threat assessment teams, but the fitness-for-duty guidelines do not require coordination

with the threat assessment teams. Guidance on how

and when to request fitness-for-duty exams is not

included in the Associate Supervisor Program or

workplace violence awareness training.

No centralized records on fitness-for-duty exams are

kept at the national level. Some performance cluster

staff estimate that they request exams for mental

health concerns a few times a month; others report

that they see such requests only about once a year.

Perceptions

Some managers believe supervisors do not know

how or when to request an FFD. One official commented, "Supervisors don't know what kind of

information to provide in requesting an FFD. Often

the requests are full of postal jargon, or more about

performance than behavior."

Opinions vary about the adequacy of advice received

from fitness-for-duty practitioners. While several

medical staff interviewed feel the advice from

outside practitioners is satisfactory, some EWIAs

have concerns. One medical officer said, "The level

of expertise is excellent. They will reassess

employees if necessary, they understand our

environment, they visit our sites to learn about it."

On the other hand, an EWIA in a different location

suggested that practitioners might not know enough

about the postal work environment to make good

assessments. Another EWIA commented, "The

medical unit and I have different philosophies about

providers. They think any board-certified psychiatrist can do it. I think FFD and dangerousness are

very specialized; they need someone who understands the work environment. We need people with

forensic practice, experience with dangerousness,

experience with people who may not tell the truth."

Several field medical staff whom we interviewed

appeared unaware of the requirement to consult with

the national medical director on psychiatric FFDs.

Some managers commented that getting a fitnessfor-duty exam is a very lengthy process. According

to one manager, "If it goes to a third opinion, it can

take a year. It may add stresses to the employee

because it takes a long time."

CRISIS MANAGEMENT

The purpose of crisis management is to prepare

employees to manage incidents of violence or

natural disasters, to provide for the care and support

of victims and their families, and to establish an

orderly return to normal operations. At a minimum,

USPS requires each of the 85 performance clusters

to establish a crisis management team, develop and

implement a local plan, and provide crisis

management training. A team is also being

developed for headquarters. USPS's approach to

crisis management is more thorough than that of

some other large organizations.

Performance cluster leadership is responsible for

ensuring that local, customized plans are made

available to each facility. Each facility is responsible

for ensuring the availability of a crisis management

plan in readiness for violent crises. Performance

clusters have the responsibility for ensuring that

supervisory or managerial employees are familiar

with the plan and are prepared to respond when

necessary. At the local level, postal inspectors are

76 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
asked to check with performance clusters each year

to make sure their crisis management plans are in

place and up-to-date. Inspectors are supposed to

report their findings to the Inspection Service, but

national data are sketchy. Reporting requirements

and format were strengthened starting October 1,

1999.

Crisis management training includes initial training

and simulations. Some knowledge is shared when

staff participate in crisis simulations in other

performance clusters. The area manager of human

resources is responsible for ensuring that the

simulations occur. Headquarters staff keep a record

of the crisis simulations that are scheduled and

conducted in the field. Seventy-four of 85

performance clusters conducted simulations during

1999.

Communications During a Crisis

Communications program specialists (CPSs) in the

field are assigned to cover designated geographic

areas. CPSs are members of the crisis management

teams. Field staff typically handle local situations

with guidance from headquarters.

A CPS immediately travels to the scene when notified of a violent incident. There should be a designee, typically a manager or human resources official,

who can handle internal and external communication

until the CPS arrives. The CPS sets up a command

center, often located away from the scene in order to

draw the media away from the incident. As soon as

possible, the CPS briefs the press and may issue a

press release. It is the goal of the communications

team to maintain open communication and to

provide a consistent message and information to the

media. The CPS also keeps local employees and

headquarters informed.

The level of effort depends on the severity of the

incident. After a serious incident such as a homicide,

the CPS might stay on site for several days to talk to

the media and employees about the situation.

Headquarters might also share information with

employees nationwide.

Perceptions

Managers at all levels of USPS generally have

positive perceptions about the crisis management

plans and team preparedness. Most believe that

crisis management team members know their roles

and are well prepared. Most team members we

interviewed understood their roles, had participated

in a recent simulation and found it useful, and felt

well prepared to respond to a crisis.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 77
Systems for Monitoring Violence and Potential Violence

USPS has established the Office of Workplace

Environment Improvement to lead efforts to monitor

the work environment and to develop initiatives to

improve it. Through a number of systems, USPS

collects a great deal of information about violence

and potential violence, considerably more than some

other private and public organizations. Some of the

information is integrated, but some is not. USPS

does not integrate data on substance abuse

problems, such as information from fitness-for-duty

exams, data on use of employee assistance

programs, and drug testing results.

WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT

INDICATORS

The Office of Workplace Environment Improvement

collects and distributes information on a range of

workplace environment indicators at the

performance cluster level, including EEO complaint

rates, grievance rates and win rates, employee

survey results, diversity activities, and recognition

dollars. The purpose of the workplace environment

indicators is to focus organizational attention on

these issues. Only employee survey results are

currently available for units smaller than

performance clusters.

TROUBLED WORK SITE

IDENTIFICATION

In January 1998, USPS set up a procedure for

identifying sites where violence might erupt. The

Office of Workplace Environment Improvement and

the National Workplace Environment Advisory

Committee oversee this process. The committee

includes representatives from postal management,

the Postal Inspection Service, the Office of

Inspector General, the management associations,

and the unions.

The committee reviews lists of troubled sites

submitted by the areas as well as sites identified by

unions, management, or others. The Office of

Workplace Environment Improvement reviews

action plans developed by the field to ensure that

they address workplace problems, follow an

appropriate timeline, have measures of success, and

have adequate follow-up. The committee and the

Office of Workplace Environment Improvement

provide consulting to aid the areas in carrying out

their plans and in getting their sites off the troubled

site list. It is the responsibility of the areas to carry

out their action plans and to request that their sites

come off the troubled site list. However, it is the

committee's role to make the final decision to

remove a site from the list.

As of April 2000 the list of troubled worksites

included 61 locations out of 38,000 postal facilities,

The troubled sites ranged from small post offices to

large facilities. The committee was considering removing 20 sites from the list because area management had taken sufficient action to reduce risk.

In 1998, the OIG audited the process and

recommended clarifying the criteria for troubled

work sites.11 A number of changes were made in

response. The OIG plans to conduct a follow-up review.

SHARING LESSONS FROM LOCAL

EXPERIENCE

A number of mechanisms exist for sharing lessons

from local experience in violence prevention and related areas. The Office of Workplace Environment

Improvement has established a "toolbox" on the

USPS intranet that offers descriptions of local improvement initiatives as well as links to outside

resources. Staff from that office also provide informal guidance and share information about local

78 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
initiatives at meetings of relevant staff. Training

materials also describe local initiatives. In 1998,

headquarters sponsored a national conference for

employee workplace intervention analysts from

around the country, but national conferences for

staff engaged in violence prevention are not regularly scheduled. Some communication occurs at the

area level as well. For example, in the Northeast

Area, the nine local threat assessment teams meet

together regularly. USPS also sponsored two

national symposia on workplace violence in the mid1990s.

NATIONAL ASSAULT AND THREAT

REPORTING SYSTEM

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Postal Inspection

Service created the Assault and Threat Reporting

System (ATRS), an electronic database. In contrast,

some other large employers do not maintain any

centralized records of violent incidents. Data

include:

* incident type

* description of participants

* motivational factors

* nexus to postal employment

* location of incident

* witness data

* participant information such as demographic

characteristics and criminal, military, and

disciplinary history.

Inspectors share information from ATRS with their

local threat assessment teams, and headquarters

human resources staff use Inspection Service reports

to monitor the effectiveness of violence prevention

initiatives. ATRS data are not included in the workplace environment indicators.

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

INFORMATION SYSTEM

The Employee Assistance Program Information

System (EAPIS) generates activity reports with

aggregate information on the number of employee

assistance program appointments and the types of

problems reported by employees. This information is

not included in the workplace environment indicators.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Postal Service's Office of Inspector General

(OIG) was made a separate entity in 1996 to

conduct audits of Postal Service finances, operations, projects, policies, and procedures, some of

which relate to violence and violence prevention.

Before 1996, the Inspector General functions were

the responsibility of the Postal Inspection Service.

The OIG selects audit topics by conducting research

and risk assessments, asking USPS management for

suggestions, and reviewing requests from Congress.

The OIG maintains a 24-hour hotline for reports of

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, and

maintains a database of complaints received through

the hotline and other avenues. In 1998, the OIG

issued a review of the violence prevention program

in the Milwaukee performance cluster. In the fall of

1999, the OIG began audits of the threat assessment

process, with plans to complete audits in 28

performance clusters.

PERCEPTIONS

Field managers generally resent the troubled

worksite identification process, although some

believe it has promise. Despite efforts to clarify the

process and the criteria, some managers in the field

continue to have trouble understanding why certain

places are named as troubled work sites and what

can be done to resolve the problems. Union views

are mixed. One union official said, "We are pleased

with how the process has evolved... . We have

learned to trust each other. In many instances we

have been able to resolve, calm down, and correct

Appendix A Policies and Practices 79
serious problems. I couldn't be more pleased." In

contrast, another union official said the process

"caused us a lot of problems because they just pulled

names out of a hat."

Some managers believe it is hard to get people to

focus on workplace environment indicators because

they are accustomed to focusing on finances and

service. Some managers believe the Postal Service

should have a national system for tracking threat

assessment team activity, showing the number of

threats in each performance cluster, the number of

team responses, risk abatement plans, and case

management.

80 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Security

The chief postal inspector is the security officer for

the Postal Service. The Postal Inspection Service

approves expenditures for security personnel or

devices in excess of USPS standards. There are

USPS security coordinators at the area level and

security control officers (SCOs) at the facility level.

Most facilities employ some type of access control,

ranging from controlling the issuance of keys at a

facility to sophisticated computer access control

systems, including access cards and associated

hardware (mantraps, turnstiles, etc.). In selected

facilities, clear plexiglass partitions form a physical

barrier between front line post office personnel and

the general public.

Additional security measures in some facilities

include:

* closed-circuit TV systems to view parking lots,

building exteriors, post office box areas, and

designated high-value locations, such as registry

areas;

* concealed lookout galleries that run throughout

a workroom floor; and

* alarms and sensors.

All employees are charged with the responsibility of

preventing unauthorized individuals, including offduty employees, from entering restricted areas. To

ensure postal safety, employees are expected to

report all unsafe building or working conditions to

their supervisor or their local SCO. Employees are

also expected to report any disturbances or improper

conduct on the part of individuals while on postal

premises.

The Postal Service has a proprietary security force

of approximately 1,500 postal police officers at 56

postal facilities in major metropolitan areas. Their

duties and responsibilities are limited to postalcontrolled property. They have no authority to

pursue suspects beyond postal property. State and

local police have the same jurisdictional rights on

postal property as on any private property, if their

activities do not unduly interfere with postal

operations or violate federal laws. An exception is

property designated as exclusive jurisdiction.

The Postal Inspection Service may authorize a contract security force at selected postal installations,

consisting of unarmed, uniformed personnel assigned to provide perimeter security and access

control. In an emergency, facility managers may

obtain temporary contract security without prior

approval but must notify the local inspector in

charge as soon as possible. The Postal Inspection

Service conducts background checks on contract

security personnel, but vendors reportedly sometimes assign substitutes when guards prescreened by

the Inspection Service are unavailable. The security

firms are also required by contract to conduct

background checks of their employees, including

fingerprinting.

The Postal Service piloted a training program in

1992 for SCOs in the Chicago area. Since 1995, the

Inspection Service has provided ongoing training for

facility SCOs and their Inspection Service liaisons.

Letter carriers on delivery routes do not routinely

carry cell phones or radios, but some postal districts

have provided cell phones to carriers under a variety

of arrangements. In several localities, local telephone

companies have donated cell phones, sometimes

programmed to dial only 911 or the local post office.

In some localities, the carriers' use of cell phones is a

cooperative arrangement with local law

enforcement, with the twin goals of providing

security for carriers and enhancing community

safety, because carriers can call for help if they

observe emergencies. Some localities provide cell

phones to individual carriers if they have been

threatened or assaulted.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 81
SECURITY AUDIT

The Postal Inspection Service reviewed 21 major

postal facilities during late 1997 and early 1998 to

evaluate:

* the implementation and effectiveness of the

Security Control Officer program;

* the budgeting process for security in major

facilities; and

* existing physical security at major facilities. 12

The audit found that the SCO programs ranged from

very active to nonexistent. There was no system for

budgeting and tracking security-related equipment

and projects, and the levels of facility security varied

greatly, based on many factors, such as age of

facility, location, and risk analysis. The Inspection

Service recommended that a position (area security

coordinator) be created in each area to coordinate

security issues. These positions have been created

and their responsibilities include coordinating the

security budget of the area and ensuring that

facilities are properly secured.

PERCEPTIONS

Many employee focus group participants and a few

management interviewees believe plant security is

inadequate because there are too many ways to gain

access to the workroom floor. They cite poor

security at back doors, unlocked doors, and strangers not being challenged. The general feeling is that

virtually anyone can gain access to a facility because

back doors typically are not locked. Managers cite

the frequent loading and unloading of vehicles

throughout the day and night as the primary reason

for this practice.

One employee said, "They had an incident where

some gang guys... were out shooting at each other

and the guys actually ran through the back end of

the facility shooting at each other." Another said,

"That's a real safety issue that just anybody can just

walk into your place of employment." On the other

hand, in our survey, only 29 percent of postal

employees say their workplace is open to the public,

compared with 49 percent of the national workforce,

and rates of victimization by outsiders are lower in

the Postal Service than among employees in the

national workforce. Postal employees are less than

half as likely as those in the national workforce to

say that what they fear most at work is customers or

other non-employees (6 vs. 12 percent).

Some focus group participants and managers

suggest that letter carrier security could be enhanced

by the use of some kind of mobile communications

system. Comments from letter carriers included

these three: "The most insecure place is out there in

the vehicle. We need a communication system."

"First of the month, when you've got all those

checks... " "I had a flat tire and I had to wait until

another carrier came by with a cell phone."

While on their delivery routes, carriers are alone,

carrying valuable items, in contact with the public,

exchanging money, and sometimes working in highcrime areas. These are all risk factors for violence by

non-employees.13 In light of these risk factors, rates

of victimization for carriers are surprisingly low.

Fewer than one percent of city and rural carriers

were physically assaulted by an outsider in the past

year, compared with six percent of all service

workers. On the other hand, since 1986, nine out of

14 victims in homicides of postal employees by nonemployees were carriers.

82 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Employee Assistance Program

The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a broad

program that offers free, voluntary, confidential

counseling to assist all postal employees and their

families with personal, emotional, and work-related

problems. The Postal Service has one of the largest

employee assistance programs in the world. About

four percent of Postal Service employees use EAP

services each year. Postal employees may access

services by calling a 24-hour toll-free number.

Among the most common concerns that EAP

counselors address are emotional distress, jobrelated problems, family difficulties, and alcohol and

other drug abuse problems. Employees may request

counseling on their own, or others may refer them.

Two thirds of users refer themselves.

Management is encouraged to make referrals to

EAP. A supervisor, manager, or medical official

who believes that an employee's problems may be

contributing to unacceptable behaviors or work

performance may consult with the EAP counselor

before referring the employee to EAP. Managers

may not discipline an employee who refuses to

attend EAP counseling.

There are some limited exceptions to the

confidentiality of EAP services. For example, when

the law requires notifying authorities of imminent

violence, then the counselor must notify authorities.

The program currently includes the equivalent of

210 full-time EAP counselors, located both at postal

facilities and off-site. The program also has access to

more than 5,000 affiliated counselors for referrals.

Counselors must have at least a master's degree in a

mental health field and three years of postgraduate,

professional counseling experience, and preferably a

current state license or certification as a mental

health professional.

EAP counselors are trained by employee and

workplace intervention analysts (EWIAs, see below)

to understand the culture and climate of the Postal

Service. Counselors not only provide direct clinical

services to employees but also act as consultants to

Postal Service management and union officials.

Counselors assist the analysts in developing and

implementing a local marketing plan that is included

in employee orientation, union briefings, supervisor

training, and health and wellness seminars.

EAP grew out of the Program for Alcoholic

Recovery, established in 1968. The program was

originally staffed by postal employees who were

recovering alcoholics. Over time, the program

expanded to address a broad range of personal

problems and began using staff other than

recovering alcoholics. In 1993, USPS shifted to

purchasing EAP services from outside contractors.

The usage rate of EAP has quadrupled over the pre1993 rate. The USPS EAP has received a number of

awards. In 1990, EAP received the Office of

Personnel Management Director's Award for Outstanding Employee Health Services Programs. More

recently, the program received the 1998 EAP Digest

Quality Award, the 1999 National League of Postmasters Award, and the 1999 EMA Pinnacle

National Service Award from the Society of Human

Resource Management.

JOINT UNION-MANAGEMENT

OVERSIGHT

At the national level, the American Postal Workers

Union (APWU) and the National Association of

Letter Carriers (NALC) participate with management in a national joint committee that provides direct program guidance for the EAP. Union

representatives also participate in a national EAP advisory committee that provides general oversight. In

addition, in five performance clusters there is joint

local oversight of the program. In 1992, APWU and

Appendix A Policies and Practices 83
NALC filed grievances when the Postal Service was

planning to shift to contracted services. As a result

of a settlement, pilot sites were established to

determine the best model for the EAP in the Postal

Service. Based on a national audit, five pilot sites

(St. Louis; Philadelphia; Los Angeles; Springfield,

Massachusetts; and Detroit) were able to continue

to jointly manage their EAP. Of the five sites, two

use internal counselors, one uses the national

vendor, and one uses a combination of internal and

external counselors.

The local joint committees typically consist of the

human resource manager, union representatives

from APWU and NALC, a representative of the

National Association of Postal Supervisors, the

EWIA, and the EAP counselor supervisor. Headquarters provides training for the committee members on how to jointly administer the program.

In interviews, committee members at all of the sites

said they felt that the success of joint management of

EAP had spilled over into other areas. Some of the

committee members said they approach all labor

relations issues with the same attitude they bring to

the joint EAP committee. Union officials in these

performance clusters feel that the joint oversight

lessens craft employees' view of the program as an

arm of management and increases their willingness

to use it. They also believe union stewards are more

likely to refer employees to the EAP because of the

joint oversight.

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE

INTERVENTION ANALYST

The employee and workplace intervention analyst

(EWIA) position was established in 1993 to help

improve the workplace environment and to facilitate

the local administration of the EAP counseling program. There is one EWIA in each of the 85 Postal

Service performance clusters. These analysts have at

least a master's degree in the behavioral sciences but

do not provide direct clinical service or counseling

to individual clients.

EWIAs identify systemic problems in the work

environment and advise management on potential

solutions. They also coordinate the activities of the

EAP within their clusters. EWIAs provide most of

the Postal Service's workplace violence awareness

training. Typically they play a lead role in crisis management and threat assessment.

PERCEPTIONS

In our survey, 85 percent of employees had heard of

the EAP, and 15 percent said they had used it within

two years. Seventy-one percent of users rated the

program as good or better. Postmasters are most

likely to rate the program positively (83 percent),

and mail handlers are least likely (62 percent). In

USPS surveys, EAP consistently receives a 95 percent satisfaction rating from users. However, our

survey shows that 16 percent of all USPS employees

believe the program is used to punish employees.

Nineteen percent of mail handlers and city letter

carriers, and 15 percent of APWU employees, believe the program is used this way. Seven percent of

postmasters, six percent of other managers, and nine

percent of rural carriers believe the program is used

to punish employees.

In focus groups, many participants commented that

the counselors are very professional and the services

are comprehensive. Most employees who had used

EAP services said the services are very confidential.

Several concerns were raised about EAP, though,

including the confidentiality and accessibility of the

services, counselors' lack of familiarity with the

postal environment, and the lack of mandatory

referrals.

No employees cited specific examples of the

violation of confidentiality, but several employees

said they would not use the EAP because they

believe nothing is a secret in the Postal Service. For

example, one rural carrier said, "I'm scared of it

because I don't know about the security. I don't

know who it comes back to, if they are required to

report back to the USPS about the problem. The

person who could be the problem is the type who

would try to get you back." One mail handler said,

84 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
"I don't care that it is free— I don't want my job

knowing my business."

Furthermore, some employees said EAP is "viewed

as management, therefore the EAP staff cannot be

trusted." Supervisors and managers said they are

aware that employees think the services are not

confidential. But supervisors and managers feel the

services are very confidential because they receive

no information about employees they refer to EAP.

Some employees, managers, supervisors, and union

officials said they preferred the program when peers

(postal employees) were the counselors. For

example, several employees and supervisors agreed

with the comment, "There used to be a feeling of

camaraderie with the counselor. That feeling doesn't

exist anymore." Several employees, managers, supervisors, and union officials also said that the EAP

counselors do not seem to understand the Postal

Service's culture.

A number of supervisors and managers criticized the

policy prohibiting discipline if an employee refuses

to attend EAP counseling. Because they cannot

make someone go to EAP, the supervisors and

managers said they are not sure what they can do to

address suspected problems like drug or alcohol

abuse by employees.

Some employees complained about limited hours,

waiting times to get an appointment, or

unavailability of counselors nearby. Some

commented that they prefer off-site locations for

EAP counselors, because other employees are less

likely to see them coming or going. On the other

hand, some employees complained that counselors

are not available on-site at their facilities.

A number of managers had positive comments about

the employee workplace intervention analysts, such

as "wonderful," "helped a lot," "good at predicting

who might be a problem employee." One manager

said the analyst's "primary responsibility is to be our

eyes and ears, the person who finds a safe haven for

people who have problems."

Appendix A Policies and Practices 85
Terminations

Being fired is a traumatic event that often leads to

anger and may lead to violence. Several homicides

by USPS employees occurred after the perpetrators

were fired. In a national survey of employers, human

resources executives estimated that firing was a

motivator in about one in five violent workplace

incidents.14 Employees' anger about being fired often

focuses on the way they were fired.

TRAINING FOR MANAGERS

USPS has piloted a training program, "Separation: A

Peaceful Parting" to teach managers to defuse the

potential for violence when they must fire an

employee. Pilot sites are Kansas City, New York

City, Oakland, and Salt Lake City. These sites

volunteered to try the program, and as we submitted

this report USPS was reviewing its effectiveness.

The program provides training to employee and

workplace intervention analysts, medical professionals, human resources and labor relations professionals, and senior operations managers. Training is

currently limited to more senior managers rather

than all line supervisors. If a supervisor must discharge an employee, it is expected that the

supervisor will consult a senior manager who has

been through this training to get support and guidance. The program's purpose is to teach techniques

and observation skills to defuse the potential for

violence when an employee must be fired.

The training reminds participants that the

groundwork for safe separation begins with their

daily interactions with employees. Program

objectives are to help supervisors and managers:

* recognize the warning signs often associated

with violent acts;

* identify and use internal resources during a

separation process, such as the threat assessment

team, management organizations, EAP,

employee workplace intervention analysts, and

shop stewards; and

* conduct a safe and effective meeting after the

proposed notice of removal is provided to the

employee.

ARBITRATION DECISIONS

An employee who files a grievance over a

termination and loses is essentially losing his job for

a second time. Two homicides by postal employees

occurred immediately following arbitration decisions

that upheld their firing. As the employees'

representatives, the unions are responsible for

notifying employees of arbitration decisions. The

unions do not have standard practices for notifying

employees of such decisions. Union officials say they

would typically notify the employee by phone or in

person as well as by letter. One arbitrator

interviewed by the Commission commented that "It

is very haphazard how information is relayed to the

grievant. The letter sent to the union might be

opened by a secretary, and she might tell the employee, who is usually calling in often to find out."

The perpetrator in the multiple homicide at Royal

Oak, Michigan, had been notified by a message left

on his answering machine.

86 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Management Skills

Management's desire for a new organization culture

and better relationships between management and

employees has been communicated in many USPS

corporate publications. For example, in the December 1998 issue of the in-house magazine Leadership,

the Postmaster General was quoted as focusing on

four key values for USPS: fairness, safe ty,

opportunity, and pride.

TRAINING

Ongoing national training initiatives to improve the

interpersonal skills of managers include the

Associate Supervisor Program for first-line supervisors, the Career Management Program for midlevel managers, the Postmaster Core Curriculum, the

Advanced Leadership program for senior managers,

and workplace violence awareness training for all

employees. The USPS philosophy is that employee

development is the responsibility of the individual,

although the manager may be involved. Much of the

training at the Postal Service is decentralized and is

handled at the area and performance cluster level.

In 1992, training expenditures and hours were cut by

40 percent. This meant that many managers had no

training at all for a significant period of time. However, training has increased since 1995, and efforts

are under way to ensure training for all managers.

Twenty hours of training per year is mandatory for

employees in grades EAS 15 and above. Training for

subordinates is included in executives' merit

performance evaluations.

In 1997-98, the Postal Inspection Service completed

an audit of executive development.15 The audit

concluded that USPS did not have a comprehensive

program for executive training and development;

there was no measurement of the results of training

and development programs; USPS lacked a defined

career training track for its managers; and data on

training was lacking. Management's responses to the

audit included some of the new training programs

listed above.

COMMUNICATION

A number of areas, performance clusters, and

individual facilities have initiated local efforts to improve communication. For example, the Allegheny

area has implemented the STAR (Sharing for Team

Allegheny Results) program, which includes daily

five-minute two-way discussions for managers or

supervisors and their work units. This program is

featured in the national video that is part of the

required four hours of work environment training in

FY2000.

The weekly safety talk is a nationally mandated faceto-face meeting between supervisors and craft

employees. Supervisors hold these talks on the

workroom floor for each shift. Communication

materials are provided in some areas to help

supervisors prepare and deliver these talks. Typically, these talks include safety and security information, performance updates, and announcements.

Information about the EAP and other employee

services is sometimes provided during the safety

talks. Violence prevention has been a topic in some

locations.

ASSOCIATE SUPERVISOR PROGRAM

The Associate Supervisor Program (ASP) includes

both selection and training components. Instead of

the past practice of promoting employees primarily

from the ranks of craft employees directly to firstline supervisor positions (often with no training),

employees are now required to graduate from ASP

before they apply for supervisor positions. As of

February 2000, three years after ASP was

Appendix A Policies and Practices 87
introduced, USPS had more than 7,000 ASP

graduates among 60,000 managers and supervisors.

Most ASP participants are selected from craft

employees, although selection from outside USPS is

increasing. Examinations for selection into ASP are

cognitive tests measuring math, reading, and

analytical skills. There is also a structured interview

for all applicants. All applicants are evaluated on

human relations, leadership, and communication

abilities. Scores from interviews and cognitive tests

are totaled and ranked. Veterans' preference applies

only for outside candidates. After a 16-week on-thejob and classroom training program, ASP graduates

are available for acting supervisor assignments and

are eligible to apply for first-level supervisor

positions. Some districts provide support for ASP

graduates, such as reunions, follow-up interviews, or

support groups.

SUPERVISOR KNOWLEDGE OF UNION

CONTRACTS

A 1998 survey of supervisors by the Office of

Inspector General16 found that only 42 percent rated

themselves as "extremely" or "very" knowledgeable

of union contracts, and 83 percent considered

themselves self-taught. A 1999 OIG report17 found

that supervisors believed it was inappropriate for

them to resolve many types of grievances or that

they lacked authority to do so. Instead, they

automatically denied all grievances or failed to meet

with employees and union representatives. The

grievances then moved on to the next, more formal

stage in the process. In our interviews a number of

managers made comments consistent with these

findings. For example, one manager said,

"Supervisors don't do enough to resolve things early

at step one... . We need to try to communicate that

they do have authority to resolve issues."

In FY1999, USPS provided a four-hour course on

labor relations, aiming to reach 29,000 supervisors

and managers. The course emphasized treating

employees with dignity and respect, contract

compliance, and communication.

PERCEPTIONS

We heard many positive comments about individual

managers and supervisors. In addition, many top

managers at headquarters and in the field are making

concerted efforts to change the culture and the

predominant management style. One field manager

described his efforts to change the culture by saying,

"The 'damn it do it' style has no place here." The

Commission's survey results show that USPS

employees' views of management are less positive

than the views of employees nationally, but a

majority of postal employees say that managers are

fair, communicate about plans, and give credit and

praise. In addition, the survey shows that postal

managers' self-reported attitudes are no more

autocratic than those of other managers. However,

USPS employees are more likely to say that they

have little freedom to decide how to work and that

they do not have a lot to say about what happens on

the job.

Observers have described a rigid management style

at USPS for years. In 1968, the President's

Commission on Postal Organization wrote that

"supervision tends to be strongly authoritarian."18 A

number of studies commissioned by USPS in the

1980s and 1990s yielded similar findings.19 More

recently, reports by the General Accounting Office

in 1994 and 199720 reached similar findings.

Arbitrators, craft employees, supervisors and managers, and officials of unions and management

associations made similar comments in interviews

and focus groups with Commission staff, describing

the prevalent management style as inflexible,

uncommunicative, and unresponsive.

In interviews and focus groups, supervisors' and

managers' behavior came up repeatedly as a focus

when we asked about workplace violence. Thus, a

complex picture emerges, of an organization in

which management styles are changing but in which

"old-style" management is still prevalent and highly

salient in influencing the work climate and

perceptions.

88 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Comments from arbitrators included:

* "Supervisors... don't have the proper training to

manage so they become militaristic."

* "Employees are regularly spoken down to— not

privately, they do it publicly. The norm is the

employee is embarrassed, ridiculed in the

presence of other employees."

* "When supervisors are testifying they often say

they never knew how to handle people, never

were trained in it."

Comments from craft employees included:

* "The supervisors aren't people people.... 'I'm the

man, I'm the head, you do what I tell you.'"

* "A supervisor told me once: 'If you like me, I'm

not doing my job.'"

* "A lot of supervisors don't really talk to their

people."

* "A lot of supervisors are not trained to deal with

people, to have people skills."

* "If you go to your supervisor with a problem—

you might as well get on the P.A. system and tell

everyone— supervisors don't keep things

confidential— once you tell them, it's out there."

* "Supervisors don't have the experience and

training to know how to supervise."

Comments from supervisors and managers included:

* "There is a lack of interpersonal skills training

for employees and management."

* "Maybe 30 percent of managers are good

communicators, 70 percent are still from the old

school."

* "We need to improve communication between

frontline supervisors and employees. They need

to treat employees with respect and dignity."

* "We are trying to improve communication and

leadership skills."

* "We need to break the paradigm of what a leader

is."

* "Management does not respect employees....

We have a few people in key positions in

management that have demonstrated that they

do not respect the craft."

Comments from union and management association

officials included:

* "Some supervisors are abusive... . Abusive

management styles, unsafe work conditions, and

small spaces, these are the elements that lead to

violence."

* "Management is very autocratic. [Manager X]

said this management style was over, but there's

been no evidence of that. It's a power trip with

the managers. I would say that about 50 percent

of the managers are autocratic in their

management style."

* "People have a tendency to not respect others at

all times... . Not knowing how to communicate

effectively with someone."

* "If we stopped breaking the contract, not caring

about employees' dignity and respect, treating

them like tools, not people, paying no attention

to personal problems, there would be a big

improvement."

Managers overwhelmingly believe that ASP has

eliminated favoritism in the selection of supervisors.

A district manager said that "before the ASP,

supervisors were hired by the old boy network, but

now it's more structured." One manager commented

that "now craft employees do not think favoritism is

the only way to get a management job." Some craft

employees, however, feel that favoritism is still

prevalent for the selection of ASP candidates.

Interview and focus group participants expressed

concerns that ASP graduates would not be able to

maintain progressive management behaviors if they

were assigned to old-style, autocratic managers. In

addition, some expressed concerns that the program

focused too heavily on "book" knowledge,

producing supervisors with inadequate practical

experience.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 89
Many interview and focus group respondents

identified first-level supervisory positions as the

most difficult job at USPS, with many stresses and

few rewards. Many also identified first-level

supervisors as critical in establishing the work

climate and setting the tone for work relationships.

For example, one supervisor commented,

"Supervisors are being asked to encourage

employees, but who motivates us? We don't feel like

we're recognized. We get a lot of bad feedback." A

union official commented that the "supervisor is in

the worst position; they aren't craft anymore; they

aren't given any training; they are the buffer between

craft and upper management." An official of the

National Association of Postal Supervisors

commented that "upper management puts so much

pressure on the supervisors, who in turn put a lot of

pressure on employees. So supervisors don't have

time to treat employees with respect and dignity,

because there is so much pressure on the

supervisors."

Some people expressed concern that supervisor

positions do not attract enough well-qualified

candidates. Some attributed this problem to

insufficient pay relative to craft positions. A

postmaster said, "There's no benefit for employees

to become management, so the cream of the crop

aren't applying for ASP." A union representative

commented that because the pay is often lower for a

first-level supervisor than for a craft employee who

can get overtime, more tenured postal employees

have no reason to apply for supervisor positions.

"ASP keeps older employees out because the pay is

lower...for employees that have been in the Postal

Service for a long time."

Interviewees suggest that some managers use the

weekly safety talks effectively, while some do not.

One local union official commented, "Some units

can voice their opinions and concerns at the standup

talks, some can't." He also commented that "the post

office loves to post things— but they need to be

discussed. You need more emphasis on verbal

communication."

90 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Substance Abuse

The link between substance abuse and violence is

well documented by research (see Appendix E). In

addition, the Commission's survey shows higher

rates of victimization among employees who

observe higher rates of substance use among people

they work with. For example, the rate of physical

assault by coworkers, supervisors, or subordinates is

more than three times greater among postal workers

who observe coworker substance abuse at least

monthly than among those who observe it less than

monthly (10 vs. 3 percent).

Postal Service policy prohibits the sale, possession,

or use of illegal drugs and alcohol while on duty or

on postal premises. Employees found to be engaged

in these activities are subject to discipline, including

termination and/or criminal prosecution where

appropriate. Smoking is also prohibited. Most

policies on substance abuse fall under the broader

USPS policies on managing disability and providing

employee support through the EAP.

Applicants must be drug-free to qualify for postal

employment. During the structured interviewing

process, interviewers ask questions to try to

determine applicants' current drug use. The Postal

Service performs pre-employment drug screens as

part of the overall suitability determination.

As required by law, the Postal Service requires

certain vehicle operators to submit to alcohol and

drug tests as applicants, post-accident, for cause and

reasonable suspicion, and at random. Postal Police

and Postal Inspection Service employees carrying

firearms also have to submit to drug and alcohol

tests as applicants, for cause and reasonable

suspicion, and at random.

EAP counselors, employee workplace intervention

analysts, and postal medical officers at the national,

area, and performance cluster level provide services

including referral to treatment and education,

counseling, and training for supervisors and others in

recognizing signs of substance abuse and what

resources are available for assistance. While EAP

counselors and postal medical staff do collaborate to

provide prevention education, the confidentiality of

EAP services prevents interaction between EAP and

medical staff on the individual diagnosis and

treatment of employees.

Since the early 1980s, the Inspection Service has

conducted workplace drug investigations, detecting

and investigating employees involved with drugs on

postal premises and, where appropriate, developing

evidence for prosecution. These investigations also

provide postal management with information

necessary to support administrative action, including

removal of employees who engage in the illegal sale,

distribution, possession, or use of drugs on postal

premises.

Investigative effort relating to the use and sale of

drugs on Postal Service premises has declined

significantly since 1992. The Inspection Service

arrested 448 people and used 139,935 work-hours

on internal drug cases in FY1992. During FY1999,

it arrested 28 people and used only 18,990 workhours on internal drug cases. This decline reflects a

shift in postal law enforcement attention away from

possession and use to distribution and sales.

A 1998 OIG report21 found that supervisors were

not trained to recognize drug-related symptoms.

Currently, postal regulations do not mandate any

specific response to a violation of the alcohol- and

drug-free workplace policy. Typically, if management suspects that an employee is under the

influence of drugs or alcohol while on the job, they

may require a fitness-for-duty exam that can include

testing for drug or alcohol use at the discretion of

the medical provider. If the test comes back positive,

management may require that the employee seek

Appendix A Policies and Practices 91
counseling or treatment, may pursue disciplinary

action, or both.

If the employee is found to be under the influence of

drugs or alcohol while on the job a second time,

management is more likely to terminate the

employee. Postal policy on reinstatement is currently

under revision.

PERCEPTIONS

Most focus group participants said they believe

managers and supervisors tend to largely ignore

drug and alcohol problems among employees.

According to one employee, "People just let these

problems go." One employee commented that his

supervisors "have to smell it [alcohol] because I do,

but they don't do anything— they just ignore it."

Another said, "It's like it is not going to cause the

management a big problem, so they let them go. But

when it gets to be a big problem eventually, then

they deal with it." Another said, "We had an

employee who was on drugs and management knew

it— sent him to EAP. They kept giving him more

slack, waited too long, and he got terminated. They

should have helped him sooner."

Some management interview participants agreed

that there were some problems with drugs and alcohol but not as many as in past years. Many saw

substance abuse as more of a factor in overall performance problems and attendance than a cause of

violence. Comments included:

* "I do not see physical violence related to drug or

alcohol problems."

* "Substance abuse in the workplace leads to lousy

performance, surly people, and family problems

spilling over into the workplace."

* "In my experience, sometimes violence involves

substance abuse, sometimes not."

* "I don't think we attribute violent incidents to

drug or alcohol use. It definitely contributes to

safety issues and concerns. I saw someone who

was intoxicated, and he started a verbal dispute

with another employee. So, being intoxicated

can lead to violence."

* "Usually, it is some other problem that leads to

violence."

A number of supervisors felt frustration at having

discipline or termination actions overturned. One

supervisor complained, "I had an employee with an

alcohol problem, I smelled alcohol every day. I sent

him to EAP. I wrote him up. Customers complained.

Nothing was done. Now I act like I do not smell it.

The employee has to be impaired, where he's not

doing his job. It is difficult because you can not

prove it.... He's going to win; the union is going to

get him off."

92 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Dispute Resolution

Although USPS has many formal avenues for

resolving conflicts— grievance procedures

established in union contracts, the equal employment

opportunity complaint process, the Merit Systems

Protection Board appeal process, and internal

complaint procedures— these processes are generally

overloaded and slow, causing a great deal of

frustration.

The large backlog of grievances at USPS is a longstanding, well-known, and intractable problem that

has been the focus of attention from management,

unions, and Congress. From management's

perspective, it is difficult to discipline effectively

because it may be months or years before a

disciplinary action is upheld or overturned in

arbitration. Employees are frustrated because they

may be harmed— for example, suffering a financial

loss from a suspension or termination— for a long

time before they can make their case to an impartial

arbitrator. The situation hinders the appropriate use

of discipline, while allowing inappropriate discipline

to go uncorrected. Some managers who feel

undermined in their use of discipline have given up

trying to apply discipline to behavioral problems.

This is a risk factor for violence, because managers

may overlook danger signs such as threatening or

intimidating behavior. Employees with legitimate

complaints about supervisors' behavior are

understandably discouraged about seeking redress.

The volume of grievances may also undermine the

quality of decisions, as advocates on both sides have

limited time to consider each case.

Similar issues arise from the large numbers of EEO

complaints. Managers attribute the large number of

EEO complaints and grievances in part to the fact

that postal employees can pursue the same

complaint through both avenues. Employees in other

federal agencies are prohibited by law from such

dual filing. Currently, only the rural carriers' national

agreement limits dual filing. The mail handlers'

agreement states that the union will not encourage

dual filing.

GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION

There is a large backlog of grievances, and it can

take years for a grievance to reach arbitration. As of

April 2000, USPS had more than 126,000

grievances awaiting arbitration. The American

Postal Workers Union (APWU) generated 80

percent of the backlogged grievances.

* The APWU accounts for more than 100,000

backlogged grievances— 80 percent of the

backlog— although it represents only 49 percent

of career craft employees. Among the 344,000

APWU employees, there is almost one pending

grievance for every three employees.

* The National Association of Letter Carriers

(NALC) has the next largest share of grievances,

more than 20,000. This represents 16 percent of

the backlog, while NALC represents 34 percent

of career craft employees. Among the 240,000

NALC employees, there is approximately one

pending grievance for every 12 employees.

* The National Postal Mail Handlers Union

(NPMHU) accounts for about 5,000 grievances.

This represents four percent of the backlog,

while NPMHU represents nine percent of career

craft employees. Among the 61,000 NPMHU

employees, there is approximately one pending

grievance for every 12 employees.

* The National Rural Letter Carriers' Association

(NRLCA) has only 74 pending grievances, less

than one percent of the backlog, although it

represents eight percent of career craft

employees. Among the 55,000 career NRLCA

Appendix A Policies and Practices 93
employees, there is approximately one pending

grievance for every 740 employees.

The annual cost of grievances has recently been

estimated at $217 million.22 A small industry of more

than 300 arbitrators handles postal cases. Over

6,300 grievances were arbitrated in fiscal 1999. This

level of grievance activity appears virtually

unmatched in the public or private sectors. For

example, in the auto industry virtually all grievances

are resolved without arbitration. In the entire auto

industry— with about 400,000 bargaining unit

employees, less than two thirds the number at

USPS— only eleven grievances reached arbitration

in 1998. Similarly, several federal agencies contacted

by the Commission reported only a few arbitrations

each year.

Many grievances in the backlog are parallel issues

grieved separately. The APWU filed 40,000 grievances related to a dispute over wash-up time in the

New York district. According to the national agreements, the unions may designate a representative

grievance when grievances involving similar issues

reach step three of the process (see below). All of

the similar grievances remain at step three pending

resolution of the representative grievance.

Craft employees who have veterans' preference may

also use an external grievance process offered by the

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Most

non-craft employees may follow an internal grievance process, or they may also use the MSPB process for certain issues.

USPS's procedures are similar to those of other

organizations that do not have similar large numbers

of complaints. The grievance and arbitration procedures are similar for all the unions. Craft employees

may grieve an action related to wages, hours, and

conditions of employment as outlined in the various

collective bargaining agreements. Generally, grievances are categorized as covering either discipline or

contract issues. As required by law, the unions

represent both member and non-member craft employees.

The grievance process has multiple stages, beginning

with a discussion between the employee and

supervisor and then— if not resolved— advancing to

progressively higher levels of management and union

officials, and ultimately to a decision by an

independent arbitrator, if necessary. Employees must

first discuss the grievance with their immediate

supervisor. The employee may be accompanied and

represented by a union representative. This

discussion is considered step one. At this step, the

supervisor and the employee or union representative

have the authority to settle the grievance. If it is not

settled, the union may appeal the decision to step

two.

At step two, the next level of management and union

representatives have the authority to settle the

grievance. After step two, under the current APWU

and NPMHU agreements, several local test sites

offer the option of appealing directly to arbitration at

the district level. If this option is not chosen by both

union and management or is not offered, the union

may appeal the supervisor's decision and proceed to

step three.

At step three, the union's regional representative or

designee represents the employee. If a settlement is

not reached, the grievance may be appealed to arbitration at the regional or district level. If either party

believes that an interpretive issue is involved in the

case, the issue may be appealed to step four, the national level. If a settlement is not reached at the

national level, the union may appeal national interpretive issues to arbitration.

Arbitrators for each case are selected jointly by

union and management. All decisions by the arbitrators are final and binding, as long as their

decisions are within the terms and provisions of the

collective bargaining agreements. Either the union or

management may challenge an arbitrator's decision if

they feel it is not within the agreement. Such appeals

are rare— less than one a year.

In addition to the grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the national agreements, a craft

employee with veterans' preference may appeal to

the MSPB. Employees who are not satisfied with the

94 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
MSPB administrative judge's decision can appeal to

the full MSPB, and ultimately to the U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals.

Alternative Procedures and Efforts to

Prevent Grievances

Management and the unions have developed several

initiatives aimed at reducing the number of

grievances, encouraging the resolution of grievances

at the lowest level, and resolving grievances more

quickly. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service (FMCS) has helped develop some of these

initiatives. Among them are joint contract

administration manuals, mediation, resolving similar

issues in groups, joint fact-finding, and district-level

arbitration.

The Postal Service and the NPMHU began testing a

revised grievance-arbitration procedure in August

1999. This revised procedure eliminates step three

from the process. If the parties are unable to resolve

a grievance at step two, it may be appealed directly

to arbitration. Sites testing this option have seen a

25 percent decline in appeals to arbitration.

The NALC and the Postal Service are developing

local management and union dispute resolution

teams (DRTs). These are full-time paid jobs in 20

performance clusters. DRTs work together at the

first two steps of the grievance procedures to jointly

review grievances and decide the next steps. Some

DRTs have resolution rates as high as 98 percent.

The DRTs also provide training to improve step

one— the informal discussion. Some participating

performance clusters have seen improved resolution

rates at step one.

The Postal Service and the NRLCA are developing

an alternative dispute resolution process using

mediation. In addition, the Postal Service and the

unions have agreed to settle similar grievances in

groups, with the help of the FMCS. The FMCS

helped the Postal Service and the NPMHU settle

most of their grievance backlog.

The Postal Service and the APWU, the NALC and

the NPMHU have agreed to develop joint contract

administration manuals. The intent of the manual is

to minimize grievances resulting from disagreements

at the local level despite agreement at the national

level. The NALC and the USPS have developed a

national joint contract administration manual, while

the APWU, the NPMHU, and USPS have local

manuals and are in the process of developing

national manuals.

USPS has recently developed an improved grievance

tracking system. The previous system included

information only at step three of the grievance

process and thereafter. In addition, it included very

limited information on the nature of the grievances.

The new system should improve USPS's capacity to

use grievances as indicators of problems, such as

complex areas of the contracts or sites where

managers may need additional training in

interpreting the contracts or using discipline.

Perceptions

Most employees, managers, supervisors, and union

officials do not think the grievance and arbitration

procedures are efficient. Many point to the backlog

of grievances as an indicator that the process needs

improvement. In addition, some employees,

managers, and supervisors said the procedures are

"too confrontational" and do not promote

discussions of problems between employees and

management to reach a resolution. Some managers

and supervisors believe that some union officials are

flooding the system with redundant grievances in an

attempt to backlog the system and force USPS to

settle grievances, or to create leverage for unrelated

issues.

The length of time to resolve grievances frustrates

both employees and managers. Employees say that

managers can harm them by imposing discipline

unfairly, knowing that the employees will suffer

from loss of pay for a substantial time even if the

discipline is eventually overturned. On the other

hand, some managers feel discipline is ineffective

because it is not final until arbitration.

Some employees, managers, supervisors, and union

officials think the process is cumbersome, but that it

Appendix A Policies and Practices 95
is effective if all the steps are followed. Still other

employees, managers, supervisors, and union

officials think the effectiveness of the process

depends on whether the individuals involved in the

grievance are willing to work together.

Managers argue that unions contribute to the

problem by filing multiple redundant grievances,

such as the 40,000 grievances filed by the American

Postal Workers Union in a dispute over wash-up

time in the New York district. Union officials argue

that management contributes to the problem by

violating the contract, disciplining inappropriately,

and automatically denying grievances. Comments

from managers included:

* "It's lose-lose. Once you start the process,

someone is mad. As long as it's up in the air,

someone isn't being productive."

* "It doesn't work. It's a huge problem, and there's

a link with violence. It gives too much hope to

employees and then they get upset when they

lose.... Takes too long... .There needs to be a

definite date when it'll be resolved so it can't go

on endlessly."

Comments from employees included:

* "They know they violate the contract and tell us

to grieve it, because they know it will take a

long time."

* "It is pointless to kick it up, as it gets stuck and

you never hear back."

* "The grievance process doesn't go anywhere... .

Makes me think, 'Why should I even bother?'

Grievances take a long time."

Some supervisors and managers said the current

system "provides too much protection for the

employee." One supervisor commented, "When

people are removed, then they come back with pay,

that makes us look like fools. So what is the

incentive to do it again?" Another said, "The only

way it's to our advantage is if we settle it ourselves

at step one. If it goes to step two or beyond, they

can overturn everything we do."

Many employees think steps one and two of the

process are unfair because management is the sole

decision-making official. Conversely, supervisors

feel the process is unfair because their managers do

not support their decisions as the grievance moves

through the steps. For example, several supervisors

said the process favored the unions and that

supervisors were "always seen as being wrong."

Many suggest that improving communication

between employees and management is a good initial

step. Comments included: "If we communicated

better, more problems will subside and grievances

can be avoided or settled at a lower level," and

"[We] need a better relationship between craft and

managers to decrease the number of grievances."

Many employees, managers, supervisors, and union

officials are aware of the Postal Service's efforts to

expedite the process and feel some improvements

have been made. However, many think that both the

unions and the Postal Service are "just settling"

issues on paper to reduce backlogs without

adequately resolving issues. For example, one

manager said, "We agree to give-aways to reduce

the volume, but we do not deal with the real

problems."

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The Postal Service's efforts to promote equal

opportunity include affirmative employment programs, special emphasis programs, programs to prevent sexual harassment, and the equal employment

opportunity (EEO) complaint process.

Compared with the national civilian labor force,

postal employees are more likely to be male (63 vs.

54 percent). They are less likely to be White (65 vs.

78 percent), twice as likely to be Black (22 vs. 10

percent), about as likely to be Hispanic (7 vs. 8 percent), and more likely to be Asian or other races (7

vs. 3 percent).23 White females, Hispanic females,

and American Indians/Alaskan Natives are considered under-represented in the postal workforce

across all job categories.

96 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
The postal workforce has become increasingly diverse. For example, in 1950, 90 percent of employees were male, compared with 60 percent today.

In 1978, the career workforce was 78 percent

White, compared with 65 percent today.

During FY1999, more than 12,000 formal EEO

complaints were filed. As of April, 2000, there were

more than 11,000 open cases. Postal workers represent about 31 percent of the federal workforce but

account for about 50 percent of the complaints filed

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.24 Postal Service staff attribute the higher

rate of complaints in part to the fact the postal

employees can pursue both grievances and EEO

complaints about the same issue, while other federal

employees cannot.

The Postal Service has a written sexual harassment

policy that is supported through ongoing training,

primarily for first-level supervisors. In FY2000, craft

employees are required to receive one hour and EAS

employees are required to receive two hours of

sexual harassment prevention training.

Employees who believe that they are victims of

discrimination must contact their local EEO

compliance and appeals office within 45 days of the

incident. The first step of the process is called the

pre-complaint stage, at which the employee is

offered a choice of counseling or mediation. If the

employee chooses counseling, it is to be completed

within 30 days, unless an extension is granted. The

counselor advises the employee on the EEO

complaint process and his or her right to file a

formal complaint. In addition, the EEO counselors,

who are postal employees, determine the basis of the

complaint, conduct a limited search for information,

and try to seek a resolution at the lowest possible

level.

Mediation: The REDRESS Program

If the employee chooses mediation, it is usually

scheduled within two weeks. The mediation

program is called REDRESS, which stands for

Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable

Solutions Swiftly. This program was designed in

1994 as a result of a class action lawsuit in Florida,

and it has since been expanded nationally.

REDRESS uses neutral, external mediators to

mediate EEO disputes. REDRESS is entirely

voluntary for employees. If an employee decides to

participate, management is mandated to attend the

mediation.

The mediation process starts with a joint session,

facilitated by a mediator, between employee and

supervisor. If a settlement is reached, it is binding on

everyone and the EEO dispute is withdrawn. About

81 percent of the EEO disputes mediated are either

settled or withdrawn without a formal complaint

being filed. This rate is significantly higher than the

rate of 44 percent for non-mediated cases. Although

this difference may reflect in part a tendency for

complainants to choose mediation if they are more

amenable to settlement, overall the number of USPS

EEO complaints reaching the formal complaint stage

has fallen during the period REDRESS has been

implemented, suggesting that the program has

genuinely increased closures before the formal

complaint stage.25

REDRESS is designed to increase participants'

satisfaction with the fairness of the process by

providing them with an opportunity to be heard,

control over the process, and respectful treatment by

the other party and the neutral mediator. Exit

interviews conducted by an independent contractor

show that more than 87 percent of employees,

management, and employee representatives are

satisfied or highly satisfied with the REDRESS

process. In addition, more than 65 percent of these

participants reported being satisfied or highly

satisfied with the outcome of the mediation.26

In 1999, REDRESS won an award from the Office

of Personnel Management, and in 2000 it won an

award from the American College of Civil Trial

Mediators. USPS is currently expanding the

program to begin mediating EEO complaints at the

formal complaint stage.

REDRESS was originally independent of the EEO

office, but they are being merged. The REDRESS

specialist position and the EEO counselor position

Appendix A Policies and Practices 97
will become one position at the district level. The

investigative function of the position will be moved

up to the area level. EEO complaint staff believe the

restructuring will expedite the process.

Formal Complaint

If a resolution is not reached in the pre-complaint

stage through counseling or mediation, then the

employee has the right to file a formal complaint.

The formal complaint is sent to the area-level EEO

staff, who decide if the complaint warrants an

investigation by the local EEO staff. In the

investigation the EEO staff collect evidence through

affidavits and documents. Once the investigation is

complete, the employee receives a copy of the report. The employee may decide to have the Postal

Service make a decision on the record or to have a

hearing. If a hearing is chosen, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission assigns administrative judges to conduct a hearing and issue

findings. The USPS may issue an order adopting the

administrative judges' decision or may appeal the

findings to the EEOC. The complainant also has a

right to appeal to the EEOC and the courts. In 1999,

the Supreme Court decided that the EEOC has the

legal authority to require federal agencies to pay

compensatory damages when they discriminate in

violation of Title VII.

Implementation

In 1996, the Board of Governors commissioned an

outside consultant to look at the diversity

performance of the Postal Service.27 The study

concluded that the Postal Service stands out as a

leader in meeting affirmative action goals and

striving for a diverse workforce. However, the study

recommended that the Postal Service link diversity

efforts to business outcomes and hold all managers

accountable for working effectively with all

employees. Based on these recommendations, the

Postal Service developed 23 initiatives, ranging from

improving support for new employees during the

probationary period, to increasing retention success,

to mainstreaming the management of diversity under

the umbrella of CustomerPerfect!, which is USPS's

management system (see the Variable Pay Program

section below). By the summer of 1999, all the

initiatives had been completed.

In contrast, reviews of the EEO complaint process

by the Inspector General have found a failure by the

Postal Service to adhere to regulatory time limits in

resolving EEO complaints.28 It can take more than

90 days for some employees to have an initial

meeting with an EEO counselor, although it is

supposed to take no more than 30 days. It can take

years to resolve an EEO complaint, including steps

at both the EEOC and the Postal Service. The

EEOC is supposed to make a decision within 180

days of a request for a hearing. In 1997, more than

50 percent of all EEOC hearing requests had been in

inventory longer than the 180-day time limit.

Perceptions

Both employees and management think the Postal

Service has a diverse workforce. Many point to the

increased number of women as an indicator of

diversity. However, some supervisors, managers,

and employees think there is favoritism at the Postal

Service, including favoritism based on gender, racial,

or ethnic biases.

Many supervisors and employees feel that the EEO

complaint process is not effective. Both employees

and supervisors think the process is too long and it

does not lead to resolutions. Employees and

supervisors express concern over problems being left

unresolved for extended periods of time. Several

employees and supervisors mention cases that have

been open for several years.

Some craft employees, management, and union

officials think the process is unfair. Comments

include: "[It] needs to be privatized in order to be

fair;" "There is a problem [with the process] when

ex-supervisors are now EEO staff;" and "The EEO

complaint process is just another mechanism to

prevent employees from receiving appropriate

disciplinary actions." According to one local union

official, "The major complaint is that employees

don't feel the EEO process is neutral like it is

communicated. They feel it is tied to management

98 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
since the EEO person goes to the HR manager's

meetings."

Many employees and managers believe that poor

communication between employees and management

leads to EEO complaints. Additionally, many think

that the EEO process is being used as a "catchall"

process. They believe many of the complaints being

filed are not about discriminatory actions. Many

supervisors and some employees suggest that postal

workers should be educated about the purpose of

the EEO complaint process.

There are many positive comments about the new

REDRESS program. Comments range from

"REDRESS is somewhere employees can express

feelings" to "REDRESS...is a much better process

because we [management and employees] talk to

one another." Most supervisors and employees think

the REDRESS program has the potential to resolve

issues. Furthermore, mid-level managers feel the

REDRESS program is very effective, based on the

number of complaints that are resolved during

REDRESS or withdrawn after a REDRESS session.

Some craft employees, supervisors, and union officials are not as supportive of the REDRESS program. For example, one union official says that "management uses REDRESS to avoid dealing with

unions." Some supervisors do not think the

REDRESS sessions are helpful in resolving issues.

For example, one supervisor said that "all the

REDRESS sessions I attended turned into formal

complaints."

Both employees and management think the EEO

process needs improvement. Many think the

REDRESS program is a start in the right direction.

However, there is some concern that the movement

of REDRESS organizationally into the EEO department may influence its future effectiveness.

RELATIONS BETWEEN

MANAGEMENT AND UNION

OFFICIALS

Four major unions represent more than 700,000

postal employees. The American Postal Workers

Union (APWU) represents more than 344,000

career employees, including clerks, maintenance

workers, motor vehicle operators, and material

support employees. The National Association of

Letter Carriers (NALC) represents more than

240,000 city letter carriers. The National Rural

Letter Carriers' Association (NRLCA) represents

more than 55,000 career rural carriers and 57,000

substitute, associate, auxiliary, and relief carriers.

The National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU)

represents more than 61,000 mail handlers.

Three management associations represent postmasters and most supervisors: the National League

of Postmasters of the United States, the National

Association of Postmasters of the United States, and

the National Association of Postal Supervisors.

These associations have statutory rights to consultation, but they cannot bargain over pay and

benefits.

For decades, labor-management relations in the Postal Service have been characterized as adversarial by

external observers and by craft employees, union

officials, and management. Problematic relationships

exist both day-to-day on the workroom floor and in

official dealings between management and unions at

the national, area, and district levels. On the other

hand, constructive relationships can be found at

some times and in some places. Unions and

management have undertaken a number of initiatives

aimed at improvement.

On March 18, 1970, more than 200,000 postal

workers went on strike. Even though the strike only

lasted about a week, it gained national attention and

contributed to the movement for postal reorganization. A number of union officials involved in the

1970 strike are still in leadership positions today.

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 authorized

collective bargaining for wages, hours, and working

Appendix A Policies and Practices 99
conditions and a negotiated grievance procedure,

including binding arbitration to resolve labor and

management disputes. However, like other federal

employees, postal employees do not have the right

to strike.

During reorganization, the Post Office was also

criticized for lacking basic management practices.

The President's Commission on Postal Organization

wrote in 1968 that, "supervision tends to be strongly

authoritarian,...and there are frequently bad relations

between worker and boss." 29 In 1994, 26 years later,

the General Accounting Office released a report

summarized by its title, U.S. Postal Service: LaborManagement Problems Persist on the Workroom

Floor.

30 This report found that "labor-management

problems are long-standing and have multiple causes

that are related to an autocratic management style,

adversarial employee and union attitudes, and

inappropriate and inadequate performance management systems."

In 1997, GAO released a second report, U.S. Postal

Service: Little Progress Made in Addressing

Persistent Labor-Management Problems. Both the

1994 and 1997 GAO reports highlighted a high rate

and backlog of grievances, and the large number of

grievances that remain unresolved and eventually

reach arbitration. The GAO noted that these

problems persist in part because the unions,

management associations, and management cannot

agree on their causes or strategies for solutions.

Management and the APWU and NALC have often

resorted to arbitration to resolve negotiating impasses over national contracts. In 1998, the APWU

and the Postal Service were able to negotiate a national contract, but the NALC contract was established through arbitration in 1999. Both the

NPMHU and the NRLCA have historically been

more likely to reach contracts through negotiation.

The General Accounting Office recommended in its

1994 report that the national leadership of USPS,

the unions, and the management associations jointly

"develop and sign a long-term (at least 10 years)

framework agreement outlining overall objectives

and approaches for demonstrating improvements in

the workroom climate." GAO recommended

assistance from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In 1994, the Postmaster General

invited the seven major employee organizations to

participate in a summit meeting to discuss GAO's

recommendations. Four organizations accepted the

invitation, but the APWU, NALC, and Mail Handlers declined, citing ongoing contract negotiations as

a barrier. USPS asked the FMCS to help set up the

meeting, and in 1998 a series of meetings were

initiated. These meetings have not yet led to a

framework agreement such as GAO recommended.

The summits have included exploring various

approaches to improving labor-management relations. Initiatives are under way that focus on

reducing conflict in the workplace, on identifying

and eliminating the root causes of labor disputes, on

building knowledge of labor contracts to ensure

compliance, and on improving the effectiveness of

the grievance-arbitration procedures (see the section

on grievance and arbitration, above).

According to the national labor agreements, each

union is entitled to regular meetings with

management at the national, regional, and local

levels. Some districts hold regular meetings bringing

together all the unions and management

associations, but such local summit meetings are not

a universal practice.

Perceptions

Overall, labor-management relations in the Postal

Service are characterized as adversarial by union

officials, managers, and craft employees. For

example, one manager characterized the relations as

"disappointing. Cooperation seems to depend on

what they [unions] want." Another commented that

"some [union] stewards like to keep trouble going."

A union official characterized the relations as "very

confrontational. Management does what they want

when they want. Nothing is done to managers for

violating the contract," and "supervisors are not

providing forms to union stewards, dragging their

feet so grievances cannot be filed. It turns into a

shouting match. That turns into another grievance."

100 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Some supervisors and managers think some unions

are looking for ways to sabotage the Postal Service,

instead of looking for ways to work together. One

stated that "unions take stands sometimes to prove

their worth to their members." A relationship with

one union is described as "war." "Their tactic...[is

that a] grievance will handle everything.... There are

50 to 60 grievances filed a day, often on the same

topic."

On the other hand, some union officials do not think

management is willing to work on relations. One

comment was that "management doesn't want to sit

down with us." Another was that "local management

has a 'gotcha' attitude." Several employees said,

"The Postal Service is anti-union."

Many managers and supervisors also said it depends

on the unions and what is happening at the national

level. The statement that "union stewards have to

follow their party line" summarizes some managers'

view of local labor-management relations. But some

employees, managers, supervisors and union officials

said that at the local level it really depends on the

individual managers and union officials. One

manager commented, "The biggest problem now is

that the union takes its orders from the national

people, and although we have a good local

relationship, we get caught because they have to

answer to the national level. We also have to answer

to HQ, so it is the same on both sides." Another

manager said relations were "much better than a few

years ago. The new district manager has set the tone

and made a big difference." One union official said,

"We communicate. We disagree a lot of times, but

we also agree quite often."

A number of local union and management officials

mentioned regular meetings and open lines of

communication as effective in reducing tension.

Some thought local summit meetings would be

useful. One local union official said, "I never meet or

dialogue with other unions. It is a good idea and it

should happen." One management association official thinks local summit meetings would be valuable "because everyone is there, you can discuss

anything."

Appendix A Policies and Practices 101
Incentives for Managers: Variable Pay Program and Merit

Performance Evaluation

Although the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970

freed USPS from most laws governing personnel

management in the federal government, some

constraints remain. The law requires that

compensation and benefits for postal officers and

employees be comparable to those in the private

sector. However, postal salaries are also tied by law

to the Executive Schedule for the rest of the federal

government. Title 39 of the U.S. Code, section

1003, states,

It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to

maintain compensation and benefits for all

officers and employees on a standard of

comparability to the compensation and benefits

paid for comparable levels of work in the

private sector of the economy. No officer or

employee shall be paid compensation at a rate in

excess of the rate for level I of the Executive

Schedule under section 5312 of Title 5.

Level I of the Executive Schedule, covering cabinet

secretaries and a few other positions, is currently set

at $157,000. Today the Postmaster General earns

$157,000 and may not receive salary or bonus

beyond that amount. In contrast, in 1999 the chief

executive officer of United Parcel Service earned

$1.5 million, and the chief executive officer of

Federal Express earned $2.1 million in salary and

bonus, not including stock options, long-term

compensation, and financial perquisites.31

Managers receive financial incentives for

performance through the Variable Pay Program,

based on national, area, and performance cluster

performance, and through pay increases based on

individual evaluations. USPS currently has no

method in place nationwide for managers to get

feedback from peers or subordinates. A "Leadership

Behavior Model" is currently in place at two sites.

At these sites, managers assess their own leadership

skills, and receive anonymous feedback from

subordinates through an outside consultant.

VARIABLE PAY PROGRAM

CustomerPerfect! is the Postal Service's management system, developed in 1995 based on the

Malcolm Baldridge award assessment criteria. The

system is organized into three main areas: Voice of

the Business, Voice of the Customer, and Voice of

the Employee. In each area, goals, indicators, and

targets are established and monitored. Selected

indicators are linked to non-craft employees'

compensation through the Variable Pay Program.

For FY2000, the Voice of the Customer corporate

goal is "Earn our customers' business in a marketplace where they have choices by providing them

with world-class quality at competitive prices."

Indicators for the Voice of the Customer include

timely delivery and ease-of-use measures. Targets

for timely delivery of first-class and priority mail are

compensable.

The FY2000 Voice of the Business corporate goal is

"Generate financial performance that assures our

commercial viability as a service provider in a

changing competitive marketplace and generate cash

flow to finance high yield investments for the future

while providing competitively priced products and

services." Indicators for the Voice of the Business

include net income, capital investments, and

productivity improvement. Net income and selected

productivity measures are compensable.

The FY2000 Voice of the Employee corporate goal

is "Foster an inclusive and welcoming workplace

consistent with USPS' people values of fairness,

opportunity, safety, and security; where everyone is

102 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
given the knowledge, tools, training, and encouragement to be successful; where everyone is recognized

for and takes pride in their participation in our customers' and the Postal Service's success." Indicators

for the Voice of the Employee include:

* achieving required training hours for all employees, including four hours of workplace environment interpersonal skills training;

* safety program evaluation;

* lost workday injury rate;

* accident rates;

* REDRESS availability and use;

* employee survey results; and

* diversity indicators and activities.

Three of these indicators are linked to variable pay:

the safety program evaluation, the lost workday injury rate, and the employee survey results. The inclusion of employee surve y results as a compensable

indicator is new in FY2000.

USPS initiated an employee opinion survey in 1992,

and continued using it through 1995. At that point it

was suspended following a disagreement between

some of the unions and management over the use of

survey results in contract negotiations. Management

reinstituted the survey in 1998, with opposition from

the APWU and support from the NALC. The other

two major unions did not take positions.

The following items make up the compensable index:

* I am satisfied with the recognition I receive for

doing a good job.

* People in my work unit are held accountable for

doing their job well.

* In the past 12 months, I have personally been

sexually harassed by a postal employee.

* I feel excluded from my work unit because of my

race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or any other

factor not related to work performance.

* Rate your immediate supervisor on: treating me

with dignity and respect.

* Rate your immediate supervisor on: ability to

communicate with employees.

The Postal Service introduced variable pay programs

for non-craft employees in 1991. After several

revisions to the initial program, an EVA-based

variable pay program was put into place in 1996,

and it remains in place today. EVA, or economic

value added, equals net operating income minus a

charge for capital used. EVA determines the funding

available for the Variable Pay Program. Each

employee's payment under the program is determined by national, area, and performance cluster

performance on the compensable indicators under

the three Voices. The Variable Pay Program

attaches equal weight to each of the three Voices—

that is, each of the three Voices determines one third

of the total payout.

Variable pay awards are a percentage of salary. The

percentage for non-exempt employees is half the

percentage for exempt employees, and the percentage for exempt employees is half the percentage for

executives. In FY1999 the potential awards (for a

unit with perfect performance) were 3.8 percent of

salary for non-exempt employees, 7.5 percent of salary for exempt employees, and 15.0 percent of

salary for executives. Each year, part of the award is

paid to the employee and part is placed in a reserve

account for future payouts.

Including employee survey results in determining

managers' variable pay has already generated some

constructive responses. For example, one performance cluster has initiated twice-yearly informal performance reviews for all employees. The purpose of

these reviews is to recognize employees for their

positive performance and to identify needed improvements.

Perceptions

The Variable Pay Program is remarkably well known

throughout the Postal Service, and employees at all

levels have strong opinions. Craft employees believe

Appendix A Policies and Practices 103
their supervisors pressure them to perform in order

to get bonuses. Supervisors say their bonuses are

too small to be worth the pressure, but they believe

their managers pressure them in order to get their

bonuses. One commented, "There are no incentives

to be a supervisor; we should get the same bonus

amount as managers." Mid-level managers say their

bonuses are too small to be motivating, but they

believe higher-level managers pressure them in order

to get their bonuses. Many employees at all levels

believe the program is demoralizing for craft

employees, because they are not included. "EVA

creates a barrier between employees and management; it demotivates employees."

A number of managers commented that the FY1999

Voice of the Employee indicators were weak, and

that they represented management's view of

employees' voice rather than truly capturing

employees' views. A number of managers supported

strengthening the Voice of the Employee by adding

employee satisfaction measures as a compensable

indicator. USPS has since done so, beginning in

FY2000.

Employees at all levels commented that the system

focused attention on the financial and customerservice goals, to the exclusion of employee

concerns. One commented, "They don't care about

people any longer... .It's numbers, you have certain

goals and they want those goals met." Another

commented that "management concentrates on the

product and not the producer, not the person, just

the numbers." One senior manager noted, "Without

an indicator... in front of their faces, people won't

see something as a priority." One manager said,

"We're pushing so hard to get the numbers, to

reduce nonproductive time, we can't take the time to

think about how to improve the work and involve

people."

MERIT PERFORMANCE

The Merit Performance Evaluation process assesses

individual performance of non-craft employees.

Evaluations are linked to individual salary increases.

Employees may receive one of three ratings: "Far

Exceeds Objectives," "Met Objectives," or

"Unacceptable Performance." In FY1999,

approximately ten percent of employees received the

highest rating (in fact, there is a ten percent

maximum quota for this rating), 90 percent received

the middle rating, and under one percent received

the lowest rating.

In FY1999 and FY2000, the highest rating was

associated with a salary increase of 2 to 4.5 percent.

The middle rating was associated with an increase of

1.5 to 3.5 percent. Employees who received the

lowest rating received no salary increase.

Non-craft employees and their supervising managers

are supposed to develop performance plans and

indicators of success jointly. There is no requirement

to include objectives related to people management

or communication in managers' performance plans

(except for higher-level managers, who are required

to include goals related to diversity and minimum

training hours). The OIG has recommended

including compliance with grievance/arbitration

procedures in supervisors' and managers'

evaluations.32

Perceptions

The overall perception is that the Merit Performance

System is not as effective as it could be. Supervisors

and managers complained that the goals change

frequently and are not necessarily within their

control; there is no conversation about establishing

the goals; the dollar rewards are too small; and

constructive feedback is not provided. One manager

commented, "The managers just tell me what I'm

going to do. No one sits down with us to talk about

our goals."

Because there are only three rating levels and there

is a quota on the highest level, the large majority of

employees receive the middle rating. This system is

perceived to demotivate good performers. One

comment was, "'Outstanding' is almost like a

restricted or limited club." Another was, "There are

not enough categories to rate people, to give them

something to shoot for."

104 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Incentives for Craft Employees

USPS does not have a performance evaluation

system for craft employees, except during the

probationary period. Their pay is based on position

and tenure, as specified by the national agreements.

It typically takes an employee ten to twelve years to

advance from the bottom to the top of the pay

schedule. The NRLCA and NPMHU participated in

a variable pay program in the early 1990s, but the

APWU and NALC have consistently rejected the

idea.

In contrast, some other large employers do have

performance evaluation systems for their hourly

employees, and some of these systems are tied to

pay. Some unionized industries use performancebased compensation, such as profit-sharing. Eightynine percent of the Forbes 100 Best Companies offer

incentive pay to hourly employees as well as

managers.

The Postal Service has a recognition and awards

program that is separate from the basic compensation package. All career employees are eligible.

There are some local efforts to improve recognition.

In one facility visited by Commission staff, managers

are required to provide recognition to at least ten

percent of craft employees. As mentioned earlier, in

one performance cluster, management has recently

implemented twice-yearly informal performance

reviews for all employees. These reviews are

intended to break the habit of taking good performance for granted. They are informal one-on-one

discussions with no paper record and no link to the

disciplinary process.

PERCEPTIONS

When asked about the incentives that exist to do a

good job at the Postal Service, craft employees

responded with laughter and some derision. One

employee said, "Managers reward you by giving you

more work to do. Therefore, poor performance is

rewarded." Craft employees feel that the main

incentives for working for the Postal Service are

their paychecks and personal pride. Employees

resent the Variable Pay Program for managers.

Employees feel they are the ones who do the work,

but supervisors and managers receive the bonuses.

Comments included "Managers get money, craft get

nothing," and, "Supervisors should share the

bonuses with us.... We're the ones carrying the mail."

Employees indicated that incentives are given rarely

or inconsistently. "Some incentives are given for the

wrong reasons and are very hush-hush." "They are

only given to those they like." "There are no

incentives. There aren't any simple 'thank-yous' or

common courtesy." "Self-motivation is my incentive." "When we get anything...it's junk." "The #1

way to make up time is not to take a lunch break.

Every time you skip a lunch break, you're donating

30 minutes to your supervisor's bonus."

Some supervisors felt that they do not give

employees sufficient recognition. Many indicated

that this was because of the amount of paperwork

and time involved in the approval process. Others

took pride in their efforts to reward employees: "I

don't think we do this [recognition] enough;

however, it's there if we need it." One supervisor

reported, "I usually buy stuff out of my pocket to

reward employees; I can't get managers to sign off

on things." In contrast, a manager who was required

by his manager to provide recognition to at least ten

percent of the workforce objected, because he felt

ten percent did not always deserve recognition.

Appendix A Policies and Practices 105
WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT FOR CRAFT

EMPLOYEES

Tools for measuring individual performance of craft

employees are limited. Craft employees, union

officials, managers, and management association

officials in our interviews and focus groups said that

conflicts over workload were a particular source of

friction for city carriers. One local NALC official

commented, "Most incidents have arisen from work

assignments... .For example, if a craft employee feels

he needs assistance on his route one day and the

supervisor doesn't agree, the supervisor will say 'do

the route in eight hours,' without assessing the

situation. The employee will try to explain rather

than accepting the answer and sometimes will get

into a heated discussion with the supervisor... There

is no true way to assess the employee's workload."

Another local NALC official estimated that "50

percent of confrontations could be solved by the

union and the post office meeting and coming up

with a new process for handling [requests for

overtime]." Similarly, a senior manager commented

"Every morning there are thousands of discussions

about how long the route is. Mostly it's just opinion

versus opinion."

In contrast with the rural carriers, who have greater

independence and incentives to work efficiently, the

city carriers are subject to close supervision and

have incentives to work inefficiently. City carriers

who believe their day's mail will require more than

an eight-hour day to deliver must get approval from

their supervisor for overtime. If they finish early,

they are supposed to return to the office for

additional assignments. Thus there is no reward for

working efficiently and no penalty for working

inefficiently. Limited tools for measuring workload

exacerbate the problem. In contrast, rural carriers'

salary is based on an annual evaluation of their

route. If they finish early they can go home, and if

they finish late they do not get extra pay for that

day.

Currently, a redesigned system for city letter carriers

is being piloted in about 25 sites. This system is

intended to build in incentives for managers and

carriers and to remove barriers that keep

management and carriers from working together.

Typically, if letter carriers meet all productivity and

quality goals, they can manage themselves. For

example, they can decide their own arrival and

leaving times. If letter carriers are meeting most of

the goals, supervisors coach them. Carriers who are

not meeting most of the goals have a direct

supervisor making all the decisions.

Although some managers believe tools for

measuring individual workload and performance are

adequate, many believe they are not. Managers'

comments included: "If there is a problem in a plant,

managers have little data, so they blame employees."

"The tools are not good enough. We can only

estimate daily mail volume." "Because there are no

good performance measures now, managers are

perceived as picking on little things." "We're getting

better at, for example, daily volume recording, but

not at the individual level. Employees know we can't

measure at the individual level." On the other hand,

one senior manager said, "There are adequate

performance measures, but we need to communicate

them better."

106 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Endnotes

1

 An exception is that applicants under age 18 must have a

high school education.

2 Audit Report: USPS Hiring Process, Final Report, U.S.

Postal Inspection Service, September 1992, 026-1084324-

AO(1).

3

National Coordination Audit: USPS Hiring Practices,

January 1997, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Case No. 034-

1186646-PA(1). See also Postal Inspection Service, National

Hiring Practices Review, November 1994; U.S. General

Accounting Office, Employee Background Checks, September

1993 (GAO/GGD-93-62R); U.S. General Accounting Office,

Postal Service: Screening Applicants for Employment, June

1988 (GAO/T-GGD-88-44).

4

 Figures from Commission's survey.

5

 USPS, Threat Assessment Team Guide, Publication 108,

May 1997.

6

 USPS, "Workplace Violence Awareness Program Evaluation: Organizational Benefit Analysis of Focus Group and

Questionnaire Responses," undated.

7

 Grammar and punctuation edited for clarity.

8

 USPS Office of Inspector General, Violence Prevention

Policies and Procedures, Milwaukee District Compliance,

September 30, 1998, Management Advisory Report No. LMAR-98-002, and USPS Office of Inspector General, Review of

the Violence Prevention Program in the Suncoast District

and the Impact on Workplace Climate and Operations,

August 24, 1999, Audit Report No. ER-AR-99-02.

9

 National Safe Workplace Institute, Mandating

Psychological Evaluation of Employees, NSWI Best Practice,

No. 96-1, 1996.

10 USPS Office of Inspector General, Drug-Free Workplace

Program, Audit Report No. QR-MA-98-001, Management

Comments, June 2, 1998.

11 USPS Office of Inspector General, Violence in the Workplace: Identification of Area Hot Spots, August 28, 1998,

Management Advisory Report No. PA-MA-98-002.

12 U.S. Postal Inspection Service, National Coordination

Audit: Security, September 1998, Case No. 022-1223635-

PA(1).

13 James P. Lynch, "Routine Activity and Victimization at

Work," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 3, No. 4,

1987, pp. 283-300.

14 Workplace Violence Prevention Reporter, Vol. 5, No. 12,

December 1999.

15 U.S. Postal Inspection Service, National Coordination

Audit— Executive Training and Development Program, May

1998.

16 USPS OIG, Supervisor Knowledge of Union Contracts,

September 30, 1998, Management Advisory Report Number

LM-MA-98-001.

17 USPS OIG, Effectiveness of United States Postal Service

(USPS) Grievance-Arbitration Procedures, March 26, 1999,

Management Advisory Report No. LM-MA-99-002.

18 Towards Postal Excellence, The Report of the President's

Commission on Postal Organization, Annex (Contractors'

Reports), 1968, Vol. 1, p. 61.

19 A Study of the Work Values and Commitment of United

States Postal Service Employees, prepared for the USPS

Human Resources Employee Relations Department, October

1983, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc.; USPS Culture:

Based on Data from the Duke University/USPS Executive

Program, Training and Development Department, USPS,

1987-1989; USPS Values and Behaviors As Evidenced

Through Managerial and Cultural Characteristics of Postal

Service Managers, based on data collected from the USPS

/HRI Leadership Assessment Labs conducted from 1990

through 1997, Human Resources International, December

1997.

20U. S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist on the Workroom Floor,

September 1994, GAO/GGD-94-201A and U. S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Postal Service: Little Progress Made in

Addressing Persistent Labor-Management Problems, October

1997, GAO/GGD-98-1.

21 USPS OIG, Drug-Free Workplace Program, June 2, 1998,

Audit Report No. QR-MA-98-001.

22 USPS OIG, USPS Labor and Management Workplace

Disputes, March 31, 1999, Audit Report No. LR-AR-99-001.

Estimate attributed to Postmaster General Marvin Runyon.

23 USPS Diversity Business Plan, January 1999.

24 U. S. General Accounting Office, Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters: Equal Employment Opportunity:

Rising Trends in EEO Complaint Caseloads in the Federal

Sector, July 1998, GAO/GGD-98-157BR.

25 Lisa B. Bingham and Mikaela Cristina Novac, "Mediation's

Impact on Formal Discrimination Complaint Filing: Before

and After the REDRESS Program at the United States Postal

Service," submitted to the International Association of

Conflict Management Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, June

18-21, 2000, and Mary S. Elcano, Overview of REDRESS

Mediation Program, Brown & Wood LLP, June 2000.

26 Mary S. Elcano, Overview of REDRESS Mediation

Program, Brown & Wood LLP, June 2000.

27 It's Good Business: A Study of Diversity in the United

States Postal Service, Aguirre International, undated.
28 USPS Office of Inspector General, San Antonio District

Delays in Processing of Equal Employment Opportunity

Complaints, March 30, 1999, and USPS Office of Inspector

General, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaint

Processing, November 9, 1998, LM-MA-99-001.

29 Towards Postal Excellence, The Report of the President's

Commission on Postal Organization, Annex (Contractors'

Reports), 1968, Vol. 1, p. 61.

30 U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Postal Service:

Labor-Management Problems Persist on the Workroom

Floor, September 1994, GAO/GGD-94-201A.

31 United Parcel Service: Definitive Proxy Statement

DEFA14A, Filed 3/22/00, Table 2, www.FreeEdgar.com;

Federal Express: Definitive Proxy Statement DEFA14A,

Filed 8/16/99, Table 5, www.FreeEdgar.com.

32 USPS OIG, Effectiveness of United States Postal Service

(USPS) Grievance-Arbitration Procedures, March 26, 1999,

Management Advisory Report No. LM-MA-99-002.
Homicides by Non-Employees ........................................................................................ 111

Chatsworth, California, 8/10/99...................................................................................... 111

Ruby, Alaska, 6/20/96 ..................................................................................................... 112

Washington, DC, 6/11/96 ................................................................................................ 113

Hartford, Connecticut, 1/30/96....................................................................................... 114

Miami, Florida, 8/5/94..................................................................................................... 115

Bronx, New York, 1/21/93............................................................................................... 116

Crockett, Virginia, 9/18/92.............................................................................................. 117

Paulina, Louisiana, 4/23/92............................................................................................. 118

Andover, Massachusetts, 11/7/91.................................................................................... 119

Dayton, Alabama, 5/24/91............................................................................................... 120

Gainesboro, Tennessee, 2/27/90...................................................................................... 121

Miami, Florida, 9/26/89................................................................................................... 122

Pinetta, Florida, 6/20/88.................................................................................................. 123

Los Angeles, California, 4/26/86..................................................................................... 124

Homicides by Current or Former Employees................................................................ 125

Dallas, Texas, 4/17/98...................................................................................................... 125

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 12/19/97..................................................................................... 126

Miami Beach, Florida, 9/2/97.......................................................................................... 129

Las Vegas, Nevada, 12/19/96........................................................................................... 130

City of Industry, California, 7/9/95................................................................................ 132

Montclair, New Jersey, 3/21/95....................................................................................... 133

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1/14/94........................................................................................... 134

Dana Point, California, 5/6/93........................................................................................ 135

Dearborn, Michigan, 5/6/93............................................................................................ 138

Royal Oak, Michigan, 11/14/91 ...................................................................................... 141

Ridgewood, New Jersey, 10/10/91................................................................................... 144

Atlanta, Georgia, 9/17/89................................................................................................ 146

Escondido, California, 8/10/89........................................................................................ 147

Chelsea, Massachusetts, 6/29/88 ..................................................................................... 149

Edmond, Oklahoma, 8/20/86 .......................................................................................... 151

Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Job Type of Postal Victims and Perpetrators................. 154

Endnotes.......................................................................................................................... 155

Appendix B: Homicide Summaries

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 109
Homicides by Non-Employees

Chatsworth, California, 8/10/991

SUMMARY

Buford O. Furrow has been charged with shooting

and killing Joseph Santos Ileto, a part-time letter

carrier, on August 10, 1999, in Chatsworth, California. He allegedly killed Ileto because he was not

white and was a federal government employee. Furrow had recently been released from prison and

placed on probation for threatening staff members at

a psychiatric hospital where Furrow sought treatment. Furrow awaits trial.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On August 10, 1999, Buford O. Furrow shot and

killed Joseph Santos Ileto, a part-time letter carrier

delivering his route in Chatsworth, California.

Furrow spotted Ileto approximately one hour after

firing rounds into a Jewish Community Center,

wounding five people. Furrow claims that he saw

Ileto and decided he was a good target because he

was not white and was a federal government employee. Furrow approached Ileto and shot him nine

times.

After killing Ileto, Furrow reports that he wandered

around Hollywood and got a haircut, went

shopping, drank a few beers, and then took an $800

cab ride to Las Vegas. The next morning Furrow

turned himself in to the Las Vegas Police

Department and confessed to killing Ileto. Furrow

was extradited to Los Angeles and has been charged

with five counts of attempted murder, one count of

murdering a federal employee, carjacking, and illegal

possession of a firearm while on probation from a

previous conviction.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Sometime in the year before the homicide, Furrow

tried to admit himself to a psychiatric hospital,

claiming he felt homicidal. While in the hospital,

Furrow threatened staff members with a knife.

Furrow served five months in jail for assault in the

second degree. When he killed Ileto, Furrow was on

probation for the incident in the psychiatric hospital.

Furrow is reported to abuse alcohol.

It is unknown how Furrow acquired the firearm.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Furrow was a veteran and was discharged honorably

from the Army. His employment history is unknown.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 111
Ruby, Alaska, 6/20/96

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On June 20, 1996, Abram Paul Walter robbed and

killed Postmaster Agnes Marie Wright in the Ruby,

Alaska, Post Office. Walter beat and shot her.

Walter confessed to killing Wright during an

interview with postal inspectors about a different

post office robbery. Walter was convicted of the

robbery and killing of Postmaster Wright.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Walter did not have a history of substance abuse,

mental health problems, or domestic violence. He

was arrested once in Seattle for shoplifting and the

charges were dismissed. He is also believed to be

responsible for numerous burglaries in Alaska.

Walter was not under the influence of drugs or

alcohol at the time of the homicide.

One of the two guns used during the incident was

stolen during a burglary. The other gun is also

believed to have been stolen.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Walter is not a veteran. His employment history is

unknown.

112 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Washington, D.C., 6/11/96

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On June 11, 1996, three juveniles robbed and killed

letter carrier Mun Hon Kim on his route in

Washington, DC. The youth approached Kim sitting

in his postal vehicle as he spoke with a postal

customer. The youth ordered Kim and his customer

to get on the ground and shot Kim. Members of the

community recognized the perpetrators and turned

them in to law enforcement. All three perpetrators

were convicted of robbing and killing Kim.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

It is unknown whether any of the perpetrators had a

history of substance abuse, mental health problems,

or violence. It is also unknown whether any of the

perpetrators were under the influence of drugs at the

time of homicide. All three perpetrators were

juveniles, and thus their criminal history records are

sealed.

It is unknown how or where the juveniles acquired

the gun used in the homicide of letter carrier Kim.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

None of the killers were veterans, and their employment history is unknown.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 113
Hartford, Connecticut, 1/30/96

SUMMARY

On January 30, 1996, Garfield Joseph Patterson shot

and killed letter carrier Robert A. Budusky while

Budusky delivered his route in Hartford, Connecticut. Patterson shot the letter carrier because he was

angry that a check he was expecting had not been

delivered. Patterson had a history of violence and a

mental illness. Several witnesses to the killing identified Patterson. Patterson was convicted of killing

Budusky.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

A juvenile eyewitness to the homicide said that she

saw Patterson walk up to Budusky, pull out a

handgun, and shoot him once. Other eyewitnesses

provided descriptions of the gunman that matched

the description of Patterson. Patterson was apprehended quickly. The investigation revealed that

Patterson was waiting for a U.S. Treasury check he

considered late, and he shot Budusky because he

hadn't yet received the check.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

The investigation revealed that Patterson had a

history of mental illness dating back to his childhood. Before his trial, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and "psychotic disorder not otherwise specified." Patterson was not under the influence of

drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident, although

he had a history of heavy marijuana use.

The investigation revealed that the perpetrator had a

history of domestic violence. Patterson threatened

his sister with a knife, for which he was arrested.

The homicide weapon originally belonged to a

retired Pennsylvania state trooper. When the trooper

died, his daughter inherited the gun. In 1995, the

gun was stolen from her home by her boyfriend's

cousin. The cousin then sold the gun to a drug

dealer in Hartford, Connecticut. Patterson somehow

acquired the gun from the drug dealer.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Patterson was unemployed and was not a veteran.

114 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Miami, Florida, 8/5/94

SUMMARY

On August 5, 1994, Jerrie MacDonald-Baist shot

and killed her ex-husband, letter carrier Barry Baist.

Jerrie MacDonald-Baist was convicted of killing

Barry Baist.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On August 5, 1994, while talking to a postal

customer on his route, Barry Baist was shot and

killed by his ex-wife, Jerrie MacDonald-Baist. The

customer went inside to call 911. While inside, the

customer saw Jerrie MacDonald-Baist kneel and

pray until the police arrived.

According to the investigation, the perpetrator and

the victim had recently been divorced and Barry

Baist had been granted primary custody of their son.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Jerrie MacDonald-Baist acknowledged a history of

using illicit drugs.

She had no criminal history, and her mental health

history is unknown.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Jerrie MacDonald-Baist was unemployed at the time

of the incident. She was not a veteran.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 115
Bronx, New York, 1/21/93

SUMMARY

On January 21, 1993, Alfredo Gallego shot and

killed motor vehicle operator Guillermo Gonzalez

during an armed robbery. Five other people— Alfred

White, Giovanni Rosado, Steven Martinez, George

Gallego, and Gregory Cintron— participated in the

crime, driving vehicles or providing equipment.

White was a postal employee and Rosado was on

the rolls pending removal. Alfredo Gallego and

Steven Martinez were convicted of robbing and

killing Gonzalez. George Gallego was convicted of

conspiring to kill Gonzalez. Cintron was convicted

of perjury. White and Rosado were convicted of

robbery and related charges.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On January 21, 1993, Alfredo Gallego shot and

killed motor vehicle operator Guillermo Gonzalez

during an armed robbery. One accomplice blocked

Gonzalez's postal vehicle by driving a vehicle in

front of it in a narrow street. Two other accomplices

pulled cars up behind Gonzalez's vehicle. While the

postal vehicle was blocked in, Gallego shot and

killed Gonzalez; he then drove the postal vehicle to

New Jersey. While attempting to drive the vehicle

onto a narrow path, he struck a hydrant. Nearby

residents called police.

The victim had observed suspicious individuals near

stations on his run shortly before the homicide. He

reported these observations to the Postal Police. The

Postal Police escorted the victim on several

occasions following these reports, but they did not

observe any suspicious activity, and did not escort

him on the day of the homicide.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

None of the perpetrators had a history of mental

health problems.

All perpetrators admitted regularly using cocaine

and marijuana. Martinez andRosado admitted they

were drinking before the homicide.

Cintron had a history of armed robbery, and Alfred

Gallego had a history of armed assault. Martinez had

a history of domestic violence. Martinez and George

Gallego were involved in a robbery in which the

victim was shot several times. White was involved in

two prior robberies of the Parkchester Post Office.

It is unknown how or where Gallego acquired the

gun used in the homicide of Guillermo Gonzalez.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Alfredo Gallego was the only veteran. He was

honorably discharged from the Navy.

White was a current postal employee and Rosado

was officially on the USPS rolls pending final

removal. Cintron was a sales representative for a

communications company. Martinez was a

production representative for an automatic data

processing company. Alfredo and George Gallego's

employment status at the time of the incident is

unknown.

116 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Crockett, Virginia, 9/18/92

SUMMARY

On September 18, 1992, Jimmy Lawrence Nance

killed Postmaster Donna Stevenson of the Crockett,

Virginia, Post Office. According to the investigation,

the motive for the homicide was robbery of

Stevenson's personal assets. No Postal Service

property or money was taken during the incident.

Nance was convicted of the homicide and robbery.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On the day of the incident, Stevenson told a coworker that an acquaintance from whom she had

once purchased furniture was hanging around the

Post Office. Stevenson told her coworker that the

man, Nance, had been asking for money and that his

presence was making her nervous.

Stevenson was found dead with her throat slashed.

Her purse was not found. According to Stevenson's

husband, he had given her $5,000 in cash the day

before the homicide to place in a personal safe at the

post office. During the investigation, the money was

not found in the safe.

Later that day, the police located Nance. He was

arrested and convicted of killing and robbing

Stevenson.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

When the police caught the perpetrator, he was

driving his aunt's car, which she had reported stolen.

The investigation also found that the perpetrator fit

the description of a suspect in a previous convenience store hold-up. Additionally, the perpetrator

had a criminal record involving substance abuse.

Nance had no known history of mental health problems.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Nance was not a veteran. He sold furniture for a

living.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 117
Paulina, Louisiana, 4/23/92

SUMMARY

On April 23, 1992, Kenneth Wayne Jackson robbed

and killed Postmaster Aljorie Clark Goodman in the

Paulina, Louisiana, Post Office. Jackson was a

career criminal with a history of violent felonies.

Jackson was convicted of killing Postmaster

Goodman.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

Goodman was robbed of cash and eight USPS

money orders and was shot two times in the workroom area of the post office. Investigation of the

incident found that on the day of the homicide,

several postal customers reported hearing a loud

male voice coming from the workroom area of the

post office, with no sign of the postmaster. One

customer said he felt that something may have been

wrong inside the post office, and he took note of a

black Chevy Beretta with tinted windows parked

outside. Several Beretta owners in the area were

interviewed, and one owner volunteered that on the

day of the homicide, her boyfriend, Kenneth Jackson, took her car to be washed. Jackson was a suspect in several armed robberies in the region and

was eventually arrested for one of them. Shortly

after his arrest, the stolen money orders were

located. The orders were made payable to Jackson

and two relatives. Jackson was charged with the

USPS robbery and homicide of Goodman. Jackson

was convicted in federal court on May 26, 1993, and

sentenced to mandatory life in prison.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Jackson used marijuana. It is unknown whether he

was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the

time of the incident.

There is no evidence that Jackson had a mental

health problem. After a psychological evaluation, he

was found mentally competent to stand trial for this

homicide.

Jackson had an extensive criminal history. Before

the homicide, he was incarcerated in Louisiana State

Penitentiary for 17 years for armed robbery. Three

months after his release, he killed Postmaster

Goodman.

Jackson had a history of previous violence in

addition to armed robbery. During the course of

Jackson's trial, a witness whom Jackson dated for a

short period of time testified that he had raped her at

gunpoint.

Jackson stole the gun used to kill Goodman from his

mother.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Jackson was not a veteran. At the time of the

homicide, he was employed with a disposal service.

118 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Andover, Massachusetts, 11/7/91

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On November 7, 1991, James Nelson shot and killed

letter carrier David Bradner while Bradner was

delivering his route in Andover, Massachusetts.

According to the investigation, Bradner owed

Nelson money for carpentry work that Nelson had

done for him. Approximately two weeks before the

shooting, Nelson went to Bradner's house and

demanded payment for his work. The two fought

when Bradner refused to pay.

Two weeks after their initial struggle, Nelson hid

and waited for Bradner to make his regular delivery.

According to witnesses, he shot Bradner and fled the

scene. Several days after the shooting, a hunter

found Nelson's dead body in his car. The police

concluded that Nelson shot himself. No suicide note

was found.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Nelson was arrested for threatening Bradner several

weeks before shooting him.

Nelson had no history of substance abuse or mental

health problems.

It is unknown how Nelson acquired the gun used in

Bradner's homicide.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Nelson was employed as a carpenter at the time of

the homicide. Nelson was not a veteran.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 119
Dayton, Alabama, 5/24/91

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

On May 24, 1991, Jerry Lee Dansby robbed and

attacked Postmaster Olive Prowell of the Dayton,

Alabama, Post Office. A postal carrier found

Prowell with her throat slashed. Prowell was taken

to a local hospital, where she later died. Dansby's

brother came forward, implicating his brother in the

robbery and homicide. Dansby had a history of

criminal activity and substance abuse. Dansby was

arrested and found guilty of the crimes.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Dansby had a criminal history going back nine years

before Prowell's homicide. Dansby was released

from a two-year prison sentence only three months

before the homicide. Dansby's juvenile record was

sealed, so the details of his criminal history are

unavailable.

Dansby had no known history of violence or of

mental health problems. Dansby admitted to using

alcohol and marijuana.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Dansby was not a veteran. He worked for a lumber

company at the time of the homicide.

120 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Gainesboro, Tennessee, 2/27/90

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On February 27, 1990, James Blaske shot and killed

rural carrier Roy Wayne Grimes while Grimes was

delivering his route in Gainesboro, Tennessee. The

police never found a motive for the shooting. After

the incident, postal inspectors learned that Blaske

was paranoid and had planned to shoot the

telephone man the previous day. When Blaske's

house was searched after the incident, the inspectors

found mirrors all over the house and two pipe

bombs. Blaske was arrested in Florida two days after

the incident. He was found not guilty of the charge

by reason of insanity and was committed to the

custody of the U.S. Attorney General.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

According to the investigation, Blaske's criminal

history included arrests for conspiracy and threats

against the President of the United States.

Blaske was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

It is not known how Blaske acquired the weapon

used in killing Grimes.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Blaske was unemployed at the time of the homicide.

He had served in the Army for two years. It appears

that he was discharged honorably, under conditions,

with a service-connected disability rated at 100 percent. Blaske also received Social Security dis ability.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 121
Miami, Florida, 9/26/89

SUMMARY

On September 26, 1989, Lucious Delagel shot and

killed his ex-girlfriend, letter carrier Regina

Washington, in the parking lot of the South Miami

Post Office. After killing Washington, Delagel shot

and killed himself. According to the investigation,

the shooting was related to the personal relationship

between Delagel and Washington.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On September 26, 1989, Lucious Delagel shot and

killed his ex-girlfriend, letter carrier Regina

Washington, in the parking lot of the post office.

Delagel shot and killed himself immediately after

killing Washington. According to witnesses, the

shootings followed a heated argument between

Washington and Delagel.

The investigation found that Delagel and Washington had dated for more than a year and Delagel was

the father of Washington's child. Washington had recently broken off the relationship with Delagel. Soon

after the breakup, Delagel kicked in the front door

of Washington's house, threatened to kill

Washington, and severely beat Washington's friend,

who was also a postal employee. After this incident,

Washington obtained a restraining order against

Delagel.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

According to Delagel's father, his son was always in

trouble as a youth and had been in and out of

juvenile prisons. Delagel did not have a criminal

history as an adult.

His father said that Lucious Delagel was very

depressed about the breakup and upset that he could

not see his son as often as he would like.

It is unknown whether Delagel had a history of substance abuse.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Delagel's employment status at the time of the incident is unknown. His military history is unknown.

122 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Pinetta, Florida, 6/20/88

SUMMARY

On June 20, 1988, Joe Williams killed rural carrier

relief Immogene Rogers by strangulation while she

was delivering her route. Inspectors speculated that

robbery was the motive for the killing, although

nothing appeared missing from the mail truck or

from Rogers' personal items. Williams was convicted

of killing Immogene Rogers.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On June 20, 1988, a postal customer called the postmaster to report that Rogers was late delivering the

mail. The postmaster closed the post office to search

for Rogers. When the postmaster could not locate

her, the postmaster called postal inspectors and the

police. The police found Rogers strangled to death

alongside her vehicle.

Williams was arrested after his palm print was found

on a magazine inside Rogers' vehicle. According to

the investigation, Williams was one of Rogers' postal

customers. There is no evidence that Williams had

previously threatened or assaulted Rogers.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

It is unknown whether Williams had a mental health,

substance abuse, or criminal history.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Williams' employment and military history are

unknown.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 123
Los Angeles, California, 4/26/86

SUMMARY

On April 26, 1986, Kerry Lynn Brown shot and

killed letter carrier Dale J. Hooker while she was delivering mail on the porch of the home of Brown's

parents. There was no apparent motive for the

shooting. Brown was convicted of killing Hooker.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On April 26, 1986, while letter carrier Dale J.

Hooker stood on her postal customer's porch, she

was killed by shotgun blasts from inside the house.

The police arrived and tried for more than an hour

to persuade Brown to leave the house. Finally,

Brown's father persuaded him to come out. When

Brown left the house, he said that Hooker had been

killed in a drive-by shooting and that he had been

too scared to leave the house and check on the

carrier.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

According to Brown's parents, three weeks before

the shooting, Brown had been shot in the face by an

unknown assailant. Brown's jaw had been wired shut

since this incident. His parents reported that Brown

had been very depressed and nervous since the

incident and had tried to kill himself.

Brown's criminal history included an incident in

1979 in which he was convicted of involuntary

manslaughter. He was also arrested in 1983 for

possession of a controlled substance and was known

to use PCP, a hallucinogen.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Brown was a salesman. His military history is unknown.

124 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Homicides by Current or Former Employees

Dallas, Texas, 4/17/98

SUMMARY

On April 17, 1998, letter carrier Maceo Yarbough

returned from his route, entered the lunchroom of

Northhaven Station, Dallas, Texas, and shot box

clerk Lavinia Kelly Shaw. Yarbough killed Shaw

because he feared that she was planning to kill him

and his family. Yarbough thought that Shaw directed

her boyfriend and postal inspectors to follow him.

Found mentally incompetent to stand trial, he was

committed to a maximum-security mental hospital.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

Yarbough returned from his carrier route and

entered the lunchroom, where several employees

were eating. He walked directly to Shaw, made a

statement to the effect of "this will teach you," and

shot her seven times. As the other employees fled

the lunchroom, one sustained minor injuries. Shaw

died at the scene. Yarbough walked out of the

lunchroom and told an employee to call 911. He

surrendered his mail pouch with gun inside to

another employee and left the station. Dallas police

stopped him 15 miles south of the station.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Yarbough had no known history of drug or alcohol

abuse or previous violence. There is no evidence

that Yarbough was on drugs or alcohol at the time

of the incident.

A psychological evaluation before his trial found that

he was paranoid schizophrenic and probably had

been for years. Three doctors determined that

Yarbough suffered from auditory hallucinations and

visions of Shaw killing his family. He was found

mentally incompetent to stand trial and was committed indefinitely to the maximum security unit at a

state mental hospital for treatment.

A receipt found on Yarbough at the police station

indicated that he had bought the Taurus .45 caliber

pistol used to kill Shaw at a local gun shop in March

1998.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Yarbough worked for United Parcel Service before

joining USPS in June 1997. According to the incident's investigating inspector, Yarbough provided

USPS with good employment references, despite the

fact that he had never worked for a company more

than one year.

Yarbough had no recent discipline before the

incident. He was not a veteran.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 125
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 12/19/97

SUMMARY

On December 19, 1997, postal clerk Anthony James

Deculit shot and killed postal clerk Russell Daniel

Smith at the Milwaukee Post Office and wounded

his supervisor and another employee before killing

himself. While employed by the Postal Service,

Deculit received several letters of warning, was suspended, and underwent an emergency fitness-forduty exam. Deculit also openly told his therapist that

he was under a lot of stress and if it continued he

would kill his supervisor and station manager. Some

of Deculit's coworkers believe that the shootings

may have resulted from Deculit's frustration toward

his supervisor as well as a love interest Deculit had

in a coworker. Deculit took Prozac and smoked

marijuana.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On December 19, 1997, Deculit began work as

usual at the Milwaukee Post Office. A couple of

hours later, with no apparent provocation, Deculit

shot and wounded his supervisor. He then shot and

killed postal clerk Russell Daniel Smith and

wounded a mail handler who was fleeing. A local

police officer who was nearby entered the scene and

told Deculit to drop his weapon. Deculit then shot

and killed himself.

While working at the Milwaukee Post Office, Deculit wrote several love letters to a fellow postal worker. One week before the shootings, Deculit wrote to

her, "In the recent weeks, I have been a bit out of

sorts, and I don't have the focus to get things done.

I'm not sure what is causing this but I am working

on it."

Some coworkers and witnesses felt that Deculit's

feelings for his coworker might have contributed to

his motive for shooting Smith. Smith's friendship

with the coworker's ex-fiancé‚ another postal

worker, apparently angered Deculit. Deculit wrote

to the coworker several times, describing how Smith

was annoying him. Additionally, Deculit blamed

Smith for spying on him and reporting that he was

sleeping on the job. Deculit told another coworker,

"Don't ever get me mad, because I do get back at

people.''

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Sixteen months before the shootings, while working

at the Dr. Martin Luther King Post Office, Deculit

told his therapist that he was under a lot of stress

and that if it continued he would kill his supervisor

and station manager. He also told the therapist that

he had a gun. The therapist told the USPS threat

assessment team that she did not believe Deculit's

threat signaled imminent action. Nevertheless, the

threat assessment team sent Deculit for an

emergency fitness-for-duty examination. Deculit's

examining physician concluded that Deculit did not

pose an acute danger to anyone and was fit for duty.

The physician did recommend that Deculit continue

therapy and suggested that Deculit's conflicts with

authority would probably continue.

Deculit told the fitness-for-duty examiner that he

bought his gun from a coworker in New Mexico to

use with his wife for target practice.

Two coworkers reported that Deculit told them he

was taking Prozac. One also said that Deculit

smoked marijuana. The autopsy report showed only

traces of acetaminophen (Tylenol) in Deculit's

system at the time of the shootings.

Deculit did not have a criminal background.

126 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Military History

In 1978, Deculit enlisted in the Marine Corps and

stayed for five years. During his service, Deculit

received a letter of appreciation and a good conduct

medal. He was told that he was not recommended

for promotion to sergeant because he lacked the

required professional qualities. In 1983, he was

recommended for reenlistment but he left the Marine

Corps.

USPS

In 1983, Deculit joined the Postal Service. He

worked for the Postal Service on and off for 14

years. Over the 14-year period, Deculit changed jobs

13 times, including leaving or transferring jobs

within the Postal Service approximately six times.

The reasons he gave for leaving or transferring

within the Postal Service were that the jobs were not

fulfilling or that he wanted to "pursue better things

in life." The physician who evaluated Deculit's

fitness for duty believed he changed jobs to avoid

dealing with his problems with authority.

During his tenure at the Postal Service, Deculit filed

approximately six grievances, most in response to

discipline.

In 1996, while at the Dr. Martin Luther King Post

Office, Deculit received a letter of warning for

opening all the windows and doors of the postal

facility when the outside temperature was below

freezing. He said that a coworker's perfume made

him sick. Deculit also received a seven-day suspension for failing to follow instructions.

In August 1996, Deculit transferred to the

Milwaukee Post Office. After his transfer, Deculit

was placed on non-duty pay status for threatening to

kill his former supervisor and station manager. He

was later returned to duty following the fitness-forduty examination.

In October 1997, Deculit received a letter of

warning from his supervisor for sleeping on the job.

According to some of his coworkers, this may have

been a motive for Deculit's attack against his

supervisor. Deculit was attempting to transfer out of

the Milwaukee Post Office and was worried that the

letter of warning from his supervisor would impede

his transfer.

WORKPLACE CLIMATE AND

SUPERVISORY STYLE

After the shootings by Deculit, employees were

interviewed about their views of the supervisory

methods at the Milwaukee Post Office. Several

employees described Deculit's supervisor as strict

and said there was tension between her and Deculit

as well as other employees. One employee had even

warned the supervisor that if she did not back off

someone would come and shoot her. Another said

that if something were not done to correct the

management style, it would probably happen again.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a

study to determine whether the Milwaukee District

threat assessment team complied with USPS

violence prevention policies and to see if any

deviations from these polices contributed to the

incident on December 19, 1997. The OIG

determined that there were three areas in which the

Milwaukee threat assessment team did not comply

with USPS violence prevention procedures:

1. A healthy workroom environment had not been

created and maintained.

2. Case management or risk abatement plans for

individuals identified as potential threats to the

workforce had not been created and maintained.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 127
3. Violence prevention training was not mandatory.

The OIG report states: "Although we are unable to

determine whether following the polices and

procedures would have prevented the December

tragedy from happening, compliance with them

might have provided management with an indication

of the mental state of the offender, as well as the

existing work climate of the office. This information

could have been used to assess actions needed to

prevent the outbreak of violence."2

128 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Miami Beach, Florida, 9/2/973

SUMMARY

On September 2, 1997, Jesus Antonio Tamayo, a

postal clerk, shot his ex-wife and her friend, Mirna

Mendoza, while they were standing in line at the

Miami Beach Post Office. After shooting the two

women, Tamayo went into the parking lot and shot

and killed himself. Tamayo's ex-wife survived, but

Mendoza died four months after the shooting from

complications related to the gunshot wound.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On September 2, 1997, Tamayo was serving postal

customers at his window position in the Miami

Beach Post Office when he saw his ex-wife and her

friend in line. Tamayo reached into his drawer, took

out a fanny pack, and walked out of the post office

by the employee exit. A few minutes later Tamayo

walked into the lobby of the post office, removed a

gun from the fanny pack, and shot his ex-wife and

Mirna Mendoza. Tamayo then left the post office

and shot and killed himself.

Tamayo and his ex-wife had been divorced four

years before the shooting.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

It is unknown whether Tamayo had any mental

health problems or a substance abuse history.

Tamayo had previously been accused of stalking,

criminal mischief, and mail-tampering.

Two months before the shooting, Tamayo was

granted a concealed weapons permit.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Tamayo worked for the Postal Service for 21 years.

He was a veteran.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 129
Las Vegas, Nevada, 12/19/96

SUMMARY

On December 19, 1996, former mail handler Charles

Edward Jennings shot and killed labor relations

specialist James C. Brown in the parking lot of the

Las Vegas Post Office. During his tenure at the

Postal Service, Jennings was recognized several

times for excellent performance, yet he also amassed

a number of suspensions and letters of warning. He

was ultimately fired for falsification of records and

fraud. Before the homicide, he had threatened to kill

specific people if he were fired. These threats were

never reported to postal or other authorities.

Jennings was on cocaine at the time of the incident

and had a long history of substance abuse. Jennings

confessed and was convicted of killing James

Brown. In May 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court

overturned the conviction on procedural grounds

and returned the case to District Court.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

On December 17, 1996, Jennings' wife called Jennings' union representative and told him that Jennings had not been home. The union official called

Jennings' manager and told him that Jennings was

upset that an arbitrator had upheld his dismissal from

the Postal Service and that he was acting in a rage

about the decision. The message was passed on to

another manager, who spoke to labor relations

specialist James Brown about the situation. The

manager asked Brown whether the postal inspectors

should be notified. Brown responded, "What do you

suppose they could do?"

According to the investigation, on December 16,

Jennings checked into a motel with a woman who

had purchased rock cocaine for him. Jennings told

the woman that he had been unjustly fired from the

Postal Service and was going to kill three of his

bosses. The following day he bragged to the woman

that she would see him on television after he had

killed his bosses. Jennings spent the next few days

smoking cocaine in the motel. Jennings arrived at the

post office the morning of December 19 with the

intention of killing specific people he thought were

responsible for his removal. Jennings told

investigators that as he was parking his car in the

post office lot, Brown pulled alongside him.

Jennings noticed that Brown saw Jennings' gun on

the front seat of the car, and Jennings took the gun

from the seat and put it to his own head, threatening

suicide. According to Jennings, when Brown tried to

grab the gun, Jennings shot him twice. Jennings then

left a message on his wife's answering machine

saying that he "got them (expletive) from my job."

Jennings then found a police officer and told the

officer that he had just killed a man at the post

office.

Jennings was convicted of killing Brown, but in May

2000 the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the

conviction on procedural grounds and returned the

case to District Court.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

The investigation found that Jennings had an

ongoing problem with substance abuse. He resigned

from the Postal Service in 1989 because of a problem with rock cocaine, and was reinstated in 1992

after he felt it was "under control." For several days

leading up to the homicide, Jennings smoked rock

cocaine with a woman in a motel room. According

to this woman, Jennings said he was going to kill his

three bosses at the Postal Service because they fired

him.

The investigation revealed that Jennings may have

been suicidal for weeks leading up to the homicide.

130 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
A coworker and a friend reported that Jennings

threatened suicide on several occasions before the

incident. The friend recalled how Jennings came to

her apartment one evening with a handgun,

threatening to kill himself. The coworker told investigators that Jennings' wife told him that if Jennings

lost his arbitration, he said he would kill himself.

These threats of suicide were not reported to postal

authorities. In his confession, Jennings said he was

depressed after losing his job and that he went to the

post office with a gun intending to kill himself in

front of his bosses.

The gun used in the homicide was registered in

California to Jennings' wife.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

The investigative record provides no information on

Jennings' non-postal employment. Jennings was not

a veteran.

Jennings joined the Postal Service in 1974 as a city

carrier and was terminated during his probation for

performance reasons. He received an appointment as

a mail handler in 1978. He received a commendation

in 1979 for exemplary performance, an award for

work performance in 1984, an award for hours

worked at the post office in 1985, and a promotion,

also in 1985. However, during this period he was

suspended five times for excessive absenteeism. In

1989, Jennings resigned from the Postal Service and

sought drug treatment. He was reinstated in 1992.

After about four unremarkable years, he was issued

a notice of removal for time card falsification.

A supervisor of Jennings reported seeing him in the

cafeteria area of the processing and distribution

center on several occasions after his termination and

reported this to the Postal Inspection Service. No

action was taken.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 131
City of Industry, California, 7/9/95

SUMMARY

On July 9, 1995, distribution clerk Bruce William

Clark shot and killed postal supervisor James

Whooper III at the City of Industry, California,

Processing and Distribution Center. The motive is

unclear. Clark did not have a history of prior threats

or violence. His 25-year tenure with the Postal

Service was unremarkable. Clark was convicted of

killing Whooper.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

Clark first attacked Whooper with his fists on the

workroom floor. Whooper reported the assault to

the facility supervisor, who went to the scene of the

assault. The supervisor was speaking with Whooper

when Clark returned to the floor with a revolver and

shot Whooper. Employees wrestled the gun from

Clark and held him until Los Angeles sheriffs

arrived.

Although a concrete motive for the homicide is

unknown, investigators learned that Clark had hired

a private investigator to locate Whooper's home, and

a hand-drawn map of Whooper's neighborhood was

found in Clark's residence.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Clark had no history of substance abuse, mental

health problems, or domestic violence. He was not

under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of

the incident. His criminal history reflected a drunk

driving arrest in 1973.

It is unknown how or where Clark acquired the gun

used in the homicide.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Clark served in the Marine Corps from 1966 to

1970. He was honorably discharged.

Clark joined the Postal Service immediately after

leaving the military in 1970. He worked as a clerk in

the Anaheim, California, Post Office until 1976. He

left the Postal Service and taught math at Compton

College for three years. He returned to the Postal

Service as a distribution clerk at the City of

Industry, California, Processing and Distribution

Center in 1979. The investigation revealed no

evidence of problems in his employment history with

USPS or with Compton College.

132 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Montclair, New Jersey, 3/21/95

SUMMARY

On March 21, 1995, former postal employee

Christopher Thomas Green robbed the Montclair,

New Jersey, Post Office at gunpoint, then shot two

clerks and three customers. One customer survived.

The other four victims died. Although Green knew

both employee victims, there was no evidence that

Green had a dispute with either of them. Green

confessed to the theft of $5,729.38, and to the

homicides. Green was convicted of robbing and

killing the postal workers and customers.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

Investigators learned from the surviving victim that

Green entered the post office, forced the two clerks

and three customers to the rear of the facility, and

ordered them to lie down on the floor. Each of the

victims was shot in the head. A friend of Green's

who knew of his plans to rob the post office contacted police in the mistaken belief that there was a

hostage situation at the post office. The friend

wanted to help Green surrender to authorities. When

the police explained the true situation, the friend

provided Green's address as well as names of family

and known associates. Postal inspectors and

Montclair police set up surveillance at several

locations and arrested Green the next day near his

residence. The police obtained a confession almost

immediately.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Green had no prior criminal record. There is no

evidence that he had mental health problems or had

a history of violence. Green was a cocaine abuser.

There is no evidence that he was under the influence

of either drugs or alcohol during the incident.

It is unknown where or how Green acquired the

handgun used in the homicides.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Green was a former postal employee and was

employed with the Montclair Department of Public

Works in the Traffic Department. He was not a

veteran.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 133
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1/14/94

SUMMARY

On January 14, 1994, former letter carrier Ronald

Wendell Downs, Sr., ambushed letter carrier Gloria

Heising while she delivered her route. He hid in a

house on her route, confronted her, and shot her to

death. Downs was Heising's former boyfriend and

had been fired from the Postal Service for repeatedly

threatening to kill her. Years before the homicide,

Downs had been arrested for threatening Heising

with a pistol and had received a suspended sentence.

Postal managers had offered Heising a transfer to a

postal position outside the state of Iowa, but she

declined. Downs confessed to police that he killed

Heising; he said she ruined his life and caused him to

lose his job. Downs was convicted of killing Heising.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

Investigation of the incident revealed that Downs

had carefully planned the homicide. Downs's son

lived on Heising's route. Downs secretly made a

copy of the key to his son's home to provide a place

to wait for Heising. He addressed a certified letter to

the residence to ensure that Heising would call at the

front door. Downs shot Heising with a shotgun as

she approached the front door of the residence to

deliver the letter. Downs then reentered the

residence, returned with a handgun, and shot

Heising three more times.

Investigators discovered rope and blankets in a van

that Downs had rented. Apparently, Downs had also

considered abducting Heising.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Downs had no known history of substance abuse or

mental health problems. He was not under the

influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the

homicide.

Downs threatened Heising's life on numerous

occasions. On one occasion, Downs fired two shots

from a pistol close to Heising's head. Because of this

incident, Downs was fired from the Postal Service

and was charged with harassment. He was sentenced

to one year in jail (suspended) and placed on two

years' probation. The court also ordered Downs to

have psychological counseling and to attend a

batterers education program.

There is no information available on where or how

Downs acquired the shotgun and handgun he used

to kill Heising.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Downs was honorably discharged from the Navy.

After Downs's termination from USPS, his

employment consisted of low-paying minimum-skill

jobs.

134 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Dana Point, California, 5/6/93

SUMMARY

On May 6, 1993, Mark Hilbun, a former Dana Point,

California, postal letter carrier, killed his mother and

a fellow letter carrier, Thomas Barbagallo, and

wounded a letter carrier and four non-postal

employees. The incidents occurred on and off postal

property. The motive for the shootings was related

to Hilbun's interest in a female coworker. During

Hilbun's five years of employment with the Postal

Service, he had been given several letters of

warning, received a psychiatric fitness-for-duty

examination, and was placed on emergency non-duty

status. Hilbun had a long history of substance abuse

and mental health problems. Hilbun was convicted

of killing his mother and his coworker.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On May 6, 1993, Hilbun entered his mother's house,

slit the family dog's throat, and stabbed his sleeping

mother. Hilbun then drove to the Dana Point Post

Office, entering through the back dock area. Hilbun

walked through the facility, shooting and killing

carrier Thomas Barbagallo and wounding another

carrier. Hilbun also fired at the postmaster but did

not wound him. Hilbun then looked around for Ms.

X, a fellow postal carrier whom Hilbun had

previously harassed. Not finding her, he left the

premises. Ms. X was there but was hiding from

Hilbun.

During the next several days, Hilbun had several

confrontations in which he shot and wounded four

non-postal employees. Hilbun also broke into a

residence and drank alcoholic beverages. The police

found Hilbun in a local bar.

During the police interrogation, Hilbun said that he

had gone to the post office on May 6 to find Ms. X.

Hilbun said he believed that the world was coming

to an end and he wanted to save her. He also said he

believed they were chosen to be husband and wife of

the human race. Hilbun believed that Ms. X and he

were two halves that were complete together. He

claimed that he had killed his mother so she would

not suffer the catastrophe that was to come from the

world coming to an end. When asked why he tried

to shoot the postmaster, Hilbun responded that the

postmaster was trying to keep him and Ms. X apart.

On the day of the shootings, Ms. X had come to the

Dana Point Post Office to pick up her last paycheck

before she transferred to another postal facility because of Hilbun's harassment. The postmaster and

another postal employee had brought personal handguns to the post office that day in order to protect

themselves from Hilbun.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Criminal and Substance Abuse History

Hilbun had a long history of alcohol, marijuana, and

cocaine abuse and never received any treatment for

his drug problems.

In June 1992, Hilbun was arrested for drunk driving.

Hilbun resisted arrest and tried to run over the

arresting police officer.

In September 1992, Hilbun was arrested for

continuing to contact Ms. X after agreeing to leave

her alone.

It is unknown how Hilbun acquired the gun used in

the homicides.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 135
Mental Health

As an adolescent, as well as in the Air Force, Hilbun

was treated for suicidal thoughts. While Hilbun

served in the Air Force he was diagnosed with

schizoid personality with depressive features. Hilbun

saw a psychologist on four occasions but terminated

his treatment because he felt he no longer needed it.

The treating doctor felt that Hilbun needed longterm therapy.

In September 1992, Hilbun was placed on

emergency non-duty work status and was referred

for a psychiatric fitness-for-duty examination

because of his continued harassment of his coworker, Ms. X. The next day, Hilbun was arrested for

harassing Ms. X. An employee assistance program

counselor arranged to have Hilbun committed for

observation for 14 days in a local hospital. The

observing psychiatrist disagreed with the military's

diagnosis of schizoid personality and also ruled out

paranoid delusional disorder. Instead, Hilbun was

diagnosed with substance abuse disorder, as well as

bipolar disease. The psychiatrist indicated that

Hilbun was taking Lithium for bipolar disease and

that his condition was in remission. There is

conflicting advice from the examining physicians

regarding Hilbun's treatment and mental status.

Hilbun said he had not taken any illegal or

prescription drugs, including the Lithium, for several

weeks before the shootings.

In April, 1993 Hilbun underwent the fitness-for-duty

examination and was found unfit for duty.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Military

Hilbun joined the Air Force in December 1976 and

served for six years. During a medical evaluation,

Hilbun was diagnosed with a schizoid personality

with depressive features, and he was honorably

discharged in October 1982.

USPS

In June 1988, Hilbun was hired by the Postal Service

as a letter carrier. He worked for USPS for

approximately five years. Hilbun's inappropriate

behavior in the Postal Service began in January 1992

and continued until he was terminated.

In January 1992, a carrier, Ms. X, reported to her

supervisor that Hilbun was making advances toward

her and was leaving inappropriate telephone

messages at her residence. In July 1992, Hilbun left

his key and a note at Ms. X's home. She told her

supervisor, who counseled Hilbun on the matter.

Hilbun said he felt that Ms. X had led him on but he

agreed to leave her alone. The supervisor referred

Hilbun to the employee assistance program.

In September 1992, Hilbun reported for work and

began playing the radio loudly. He was singing and

dancing with underwear on his head. Hilbun was

told to leave the premises. On the same day, Ms. X

reported that Hilbun had resumed his contacts with

her. Hilbun was subsequently placed on emergency

non-duty status, and his supervisor requested a

fitness-for-duty examination for him.

The following day Hilbun returned to the postal

premises. He was escorted off the premises. Postal

employees found two dead rabbits on the postal

premises, which were believed to have been left by

Hilbun. Nervous about Hilbun's actions, the

supervisor contacted the local police and an

136 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
employee assistance program counselor. During this

time, Ms. X reported that Hilbun had left more lewd

messages on her answering machine. The police

arrested Hilbun for his continued harassment of Ms.

X. After the arrest, Hilbun was committed to a local

hospital for observation.

In November 1992, Hilbun was confronted with

discrepancies on his postal employment application

concerning his arrest record and medical history.

Hilbun failed to clarify the discrepancies. In December 1992, management prepared a letter of removal,

accusing Hilbun of falsifying his employment application, unacceptable conduct, and creating a hostile

environment. Also in December 1992, Hilbun was

placed on probation as a result of his previous drunk

driving charges.

It is unclear whether Hilbun returned to work after

the letter of removal was issued.

In January 1993, the hospital psychiatrist advised

that Hilbun not be allowed return to work until his

Veterans Administration records were released and

reviewed. Hilbun's union representative refused to

agree to the release of the records.

In February 1993, Ms. X agreed not to pursue

harassment charges against Hilbun because Hilbun

had promised to refrain from contacting her.

In April 1993, a settlement was reached that Hilbun

was to have a fitness-for-duty examination. If Hilbun

were found fit he would return to work. Hilbun was

found unfit for duty.

After all administrative appeals were exhausted,

Hilbun was placed in a nonpay status.

In late April 1993, Hilbun began to harass Ms. X

again. The postmaster told Ms. X to contact the

police, placed her on administrative leave for her

protection, and made arrangements to have her

transferred to another post office. The postmaster

also gave a stand-up talk to the employees to

instruct them on how to secure the facility. They

were advised to keep the doors locked and to notify

the postmaster if anyone saw Hilbun near the

facility.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 137
Dearborn, Michigan, 5/6/93

SUMMARY

On May 6, 1993, postal vehicle maintenance

employee Lawrence Jasion shot and killed postal

mechanic Gary Montes at the Vehicle Maintenance

Facility in Dearborn, Michigan; wounded two other

postal employees; and then shot and killed himself.

Jasion worked for the Postal Service on and off for

27 years in a variety of positions. During his

employment with the Postal Service, Jasion had

received several letters of warning and had been

suspended. He had made a number of threats dating

back to 1986. Investigators believe that the motive

for the shootings was related to two issues that

Jasion had with the Postal Service.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On May 6, 1993, approximately ten minutes before

his scheduled shift, Jasion entered the Vehicle

Maintenance Facility with a donut box concealing

several guns and began shooting. Jasion shot and

killed Gary Montes and wounded his supervisor and

an administrative clerk. When the police searched

the facility, they found Jasion dead from a selfinflicted gunshot wound.

During a search of Jasion's home, the police found

three canisters of gunpowder, 12,000 rounds of

ammunition, gun parts, and 16 firearms. The police

also found information pertaining to the

administrative clerk: her Social Security number,

vehicle number, USPS employment application,

address and phone number, and the name of her

grandfather. According to the investigation, Jasion

hired private investigators to collect this

information.

Jasion also had information on other postal employees. The police discovered a videotape of a television program on employees who shot their

supervisors and 184 books and magazines related to

weapons and killing.

The transfer of a friend and a disagreement over

radio music the day before the shooting upset Jasion

and apparently motivated him to shoot Montes. It is

believed that Jasion's motive to kill his supervisor

and the administrative clerk concerned an EEO

complaint that Jasion had filed.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Jasion had no known criminal record. It is unknown

how Jasion acquired the three guns used in the

incident. According to the investigation, Jasion had a

fascination with firearms. A search of his home

discovered 16 handguns and rifles, seven of which

were registered with the police.

Jasion had been referred to the employee assistance

program on two occasions but there is no record of

his having any mental health or substance abuse

problems.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Military

In 1967, Jasion joined the Army and served for two

years. While in the Army, Jasion was demoted twice

for disobeying orders from his superiors. Jasion also

received the National Defense Service Medal for

serving during the period of the Vietnam War. He

was discharged honorably from the Army but was

barred from reenlisting.

138 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
USPS

Jasion was hired by the Postal Service in December

1966. He worked on and off for the Postal Service

for 27 years.

From 1984 to 1987, Jasion received three letters of

warning and a suspension for problems in performance and failure to follow instruction. He was also

referred to the employee assistance program (EAP)

during this period but refused treatment. Over the

next few years, Jasion received several letters of

commendation for good attendance and accidentfree workdays.

Jasion's threatening behavior was first reported in

June 1986. Jasion allegedly threatened his manager

and said that he would enjoy killing him. When the

Postal Inspection Service investigated the charges,

both of Jasion's supervisors said that Jasion had

threatened them. The results of the investigation

were brought to the attention of management who

decided not to take administrative or disciplinary

action against Jasion at that time.

In March 1990, Jasion was referred to the EAP

because of problems he had working with others.

Jasion was interviewed by an EAP specialist but

refused treatment.

In January 1992, Jasion filed an EEO complaint

concerning a position that was given to another

employee, the administrative clerk. Jasion felt that

he had been discriminated against by his supervisor

and felt that he deserved the position.

In April 1992, the administrative clerk filed an EEO

complaint against Jasion alleging that he was making

inappropriate remarks to others about her because of

her sex. The administrative clerk withdrew her

complaint and discussed her concerns with her

supervisor.

In January 1993, Jasion complained to a manager

that other employees were harassing him. Jasion's

managers held a meeting and told his coworkers that

all harassment must stop.

In March 1993, the administrative clerk told the

Inspection Service that she had concerns about

Jasion. The administrative clerk was concerned for

her safety as a result of Jasion's EEO complaint

concerning her. She also told the inspectors that

Jasion liked to wear camouflage and owned

weapons. Later that month, the administrative clerk

wrote a detailed letter to the postmaster, reiterating

her concerns about Jasion. She wrote, "I can't

express to you how concerned I am. I believe he is a

time bomb just waiting to go off." The same day,

Jasion's supervisor had a meeting with him to

discuss coworkers' concerns about his behavior.

Apparently Jasion's coworkers were concerned that

if his EEO complaint were denied, Jasion might

react violently. Jasion denied any intention to act

violently. Jasion was also reminded of USPS policy

prohibiting firearms on postal premises. Immediately

following the talk, the postal inspector filed a report

notifying the police of the situation.

Also in March 1993, Jasion's supervisor wanted to

send Jasion for a fitness-for-duty examination but

believed he lacked a basis for doing so. Jasion's

supervisor described Jasion as lazy, a woman hater,

and a loner who painted over the windows of his

residence to avoid contact with his neighbors.

Later in March 1993, Jasion was informed that his

appeal concerning the job position was denied. In

April 1993, Jasion filed several complaints alleging

that he had been harassed by coworkers and was

forced to work overtime.

On May 5, 1993, Jasion learned that a friend was

transferring to another postal facility. Also on that

day his work group held a vote on playing the radio

at the facility. Jasion claimed he was sensitive to the

noise and voted against having the radio, but he lost

the vote. These two incidents apparently upset

Jasion. After the vote, Montes gave Jasion an

instruction to deliver vehicle parts to the mechanics.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 139
Jasion refused because the radio was playing. When

Jasion left that evening he was visibly upset.

On May 6, 1993, Jasion entered the postal facility

and opened fire.

COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT

STYLE

The postmaster of the Dearborn postal facility

commented that Jasion's supervisor was autocratic in

his management style. When asked why the

supervisor received "outstanding" on his evaluations,

the postmaster stated that managers' evaluations are

made on the "numbers," not on management style.

140 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Royal Oak, Michigan, 11/14/91

SUMMARY

On November 14, 1991, at the Royal Oak, Michigan, Post Office, former letter carrier Thomas McIlvane shot and killed four postal employees and

injured four postal employees, the day after an arbitration hearing upheld his firing from the Postal Service. McIlvane had a long history of threatening and

verbally abusing his coworkers, supervisors, and

customers. He had been suspended several times for

poor performance and threats. He was eventually

fired for profane threats and insubordination. While

awaiting the arbitration decision on his firing,

McIlvane continued to threaten his supervisors and

made repeated statements that he would kill people

in the Royal Oak Post Office if he lost his arbitration. As a result of the incident, Congress and the

USPS critically reviewed USPS culture and practices to learn what might have contributed to this

violence. Labor, management, and operations problems at the Royal Oak Post Office had come to the

attention of Congress well before the homicides.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT

Thomas McIlvane walked into the Royal Oak Post

Office from the rear dock door, carrying an automatic rifle concealed by a raincoat. McIlvane walked

through the building looking for specific people, all

the while shooting other employees randomly.

McIlvane shot and killed two supervisors and two

managers and wounded four others. As police were

arriving at the scene, McIlvane put the rifle to his

head and killed himself.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

McIlvane's military medical documents indicated

that he received a psychological evaluation for

threatening and violent behavior. While with the

Postal Service, McIlvane received employee

assistance program counseling for drug and alcohol

abuse. A doctor's note submitted to the Postal

Service in 1988 indicated that McIlvane "has no

history of emotional disorder" and that "there is no

reason to believe he's emotionally unstable."

However, in 1990 McIlvane underwent a fitness-forduty exam that found that he had "borderline

personality disorder, a history of cocaine abuse, and

severe disastrous early childhood experiences."

His criminal history reflects that in 1991 McIlvane

was arrested for threatening several of his postal

supervisors but was acquitted of the charges. While

in the Marines, McIlvane was found guilty and convicted for disrespecting an officer and disobeying a

direct order.

McIlvane was not on drugs or alcohol at the time of

the homicides.

In 1989, McIlvane received a permit to carry a

concealed weapon. The permit was suspended and

revoked in 1990 when the Oakland County Concealed Weapons Board learned of his repeated

threats against his supervisors.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 141
EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Military

McIlvane enlisted in the Marine Corps directly after

he graduated from high school in 1979. While in the

military, McIlvane was disciplined several times for

misconduct. In 1980 and 1981, he was disciplined

for using disrespectful language to an officer. In

1981, he was convicted by court-martial of two

counts of using disrespectful language to an officer,

two counts of disobeying a direct order, and one

count of failing to comply with a general order, and

was sentenced to three months' incarceration at

Camp Pendleton, a monetary fine, and a demotion

from lance corporal to private. In 1983, McIlvane

was disciplined for driving an M-60 tank over an

automobile.

McIlvane’s Marine Corps discharge was "general

under honorable conditions," and he was barred

from reenlistment because of his performance

record. He appealed the RE-4 reenlistment code, but

lost.

USPS

McIlvane applied for a city carrier position in 1983.

His employment application stated that he had been

convicted for disrespecting a superior officer in the

Marines and had been sentenced to three months'

confinement and hard labor. His application also

stated that he received a less than honorable

discharge from the military. However, paperwork

apparently filled out by USPS officials showed his

discharge as honorable. McIlvane was initially found

medically unsuitable for the position because of a

knee injury. McIlvane won the appeal to this

decision and became a casual distribution clerk. He

received a career appointment in 1985. His probationary period was uneventful.

From 1985 to 1989, McIlvane received several letters of warning for poor attendance and for misdeliveries. In 1988, he was suspended for cursing at the

director of field operations. In 1989, he received a

letter of warning for route deviation, and he was

suspended for seven days for an altercation with a

postal customer. In 1989, he wrote "F* off" on

another letter of warning in the presence of a supervisor. He was suspended again in 1989 for 14 days

for work performance and safety violations. In early

1990, McIlvane was placed in "emergency off-duty"

status because two supervisors observed him driving

in an unsafe manner while on his route. When they

stopped McIlvane to discuss his driving, McIlvane

attempted to run them over with his vehicle. A

month later, he phoned a supervisor and verbally

abused her. A removal notice was issued to

McIlvane for his attempt to run over his supervisors.

The notice was settled to a 30-day suspension and

later reduced to a 14-day suspension with six days'

back pay.

By the summer of 1990, McIlvane had been

reprimanded several times by his supervisors for his

loud, threatening, and disruptive behavior. In August

1990, McIlvane was issued a removal notice regarding "profane threats and insubordination"

against three of his supervisors during a telephone

conversation. That summer, McIlvane filed an EEO

complaint alleging harassment and sex discrimination

by the Postal Service. He spoke with a staff member

of his U.S. Senator's office about his complaints, and

the conversation was followed up by written

correspondence. While awaiting the arbitration

decision on his firing, McIlvane threatened at least

seven supervisors or coworkers. He made statements to many different people saying that if he lost

his arbitration, he would kill people in the Royal Oak

Post Office. Some of McIlvane's coworkers were

planning escape routes in the event McIlvane

showed up at the post office. McIlvane told his local

union president, "If I lose the arbitration it will make

Edmond, Oklahoma, look like a tea party." The

congressional investigation found that some calls to

142 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
the Postal Inspection Service for fortified security

were not returned.

On November 13, 1991, McIlvane was notified by a

message on his telephone answering machine that he

had lost his arbitration.

USPS created a task force to look in depth at the

events leading up to the homicides, and the consequences of the incident for the Postal Service and

its employees. Congress also investigated the incident. Fallout from the incident included criticism of

the Inspection Service for being unresponsive to

multiple requests for protection at the Royal Oak

Post Office and criticism of the very long arbitration

process. The congressional report showed that

McIlvane's union representatives were aware of

McIlvane's threats of reprisal, but they believed that

there was "almost an attorney/client relationship"

between the union and its members that prevented

them from discussing the threats with postal

management.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 143
Ridgewood, New Jersey, 10/10/91

SUMMARY

On October 10, 1991, Joseph M. Harris, a former

Ridgewood, New Jersey, USPS clerk, shot and

killed his former supervisor, Carol Ott; two mail

handlers, Donald McNaught and Johannes Vanderpaauw; and a non-USPS employee, Cornelius Kasten, Jr. The killings occurred both on and off postal

property. During his eight years at the Postal Service, Harris received several letters of warning, was

suspended, and was eventually terminated from the

Postal Service on May 8, 1990. The homicides

occurred more than one year after Harris's removal

from the Postal Service. Harris was convicted of the

killings.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

Some time during 1991, Harris began stalking his

former supervisor, Carol Ott. Unknown to Ott,

Harris followed her from work to her home and

made several visits to her neighborhood.

On October 10, 1991, Harris entered Ott's home. He

shot and killed Ott's fiancé, Cornelius Kasten, who

was sleeping in a chair. Harris then proceeded to

Ott's bedroom and killed her with a Ninja sword.

Harris then drove to the Ridgewood Post Office. He

entered through a rear platform, confronted

Johannes Vanderpaauw and Donald McNaught, and

herded them to a restroom. Apparently startled by a

sudden movement, Harris shot and killed them both.

Harris then went to the basement of the facility to

wait for other employees to arrive. An employee

discovered Harris and alerted the police. The police

quickly arrived and apprehended Harris. He was

carrying firearms, swords, knives, and several

explosive devices.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

After the incident, the police investigation noted the

similarities of the case to an unsolved, non-postal

case from 1988. Harris was later convicted of homicide and sexual assault in the earlier case.

It is unknown whether Harris had a history of substance abuse or mental health problems.

It is unknown how Harris acquired the gun used in

the homicides.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Military

After high school Harris enlisted in the Navy for a

four-year period. While in the Navy, Harris was

disciplined on three occasions, for absence from his

duty station, the use of provoking words to a

superior petty officer, and disobedience of a lawful

order. Harris was also tried by special court martial

for unauthorized absences. Harris's performance

evaluations reported that he had a lack of respect for

his superiors, refused to accept counseling from his

supervisor, and expressed a "total mistrust of all

people in the squadron and feels that he has been

singled out to receive abuse from those in authority

from the Commanding Officer down." After 23

months of service, Harris's commanding officer

recommended that Harris be discharged for reasons

of unsuitability and/or misconduct. When Harris was

notified that he was being considered for administrative discharge, possibly not under honorable conditions, Harris agreed to a "general under honorable

conditions" discharge.

144 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
USPS

Harris worked for the Postal Service for approximately eight years as a clerk. During this time, Harris received five letters of warning for failing to follow instructions, refusing orders, and using vulgar

language. Harris was also given two suspensions for

offensive behavior, failing to follow instructions, and

threatening his supervisor and Postmaster. Harris

said to Ott, "If I go, I'm taking you with me, baby!

You're really asking for it now, aren't you?" In

March 1990, when Harris refused to submit to a fitness-for-duty examination, Ott requested that Harris

be removed from the Postal Service. Harris was

officially terminated from the Postal Service on May

8, 1990.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 145
Atlanta, Georgia, 9/17/89

SUMMARY

On September 17, 1989, in Atlanta, Georgia, Joyce

Davenport, a postal distribution clerk, shot and

killed postal transfer clerk Tim McCoy. The motive

was related to a personal relationship between the

two postal employees.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On September 17, 1989, in Atlanta, Georgia, Joyce

Davenport, a postal distribution clerk, shot and

killed postal transfer clerk Tim McCoy. The motive

for the shooting was related to a personal

relationship between Davenport and McCoy.

While working at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

newspaper facility, under postal jurisdiction, McCoy

was told by a coworker that a female was crouched

by his car. According to the investigation, McCoy

knew who was there before he went outside. When

McCoy went outside, he was shot. McCoy was

taken to the hospital but died shortly afterward.

Before he died, McCoy identified his ex-girlfriend,

Joyce Davenport, as the assailant.

Several hours later, Davenport turned herself in to

the Atlanta Police. Davenport was convicted of

killing McCoy.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Davenport had no known criminal history, mental

health problems, violent history, or substance abuse

problems.

It is unknown how Davenport acquired the gun used

in the homicide.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Davenport did not serve in the military.

In 1967, Davenport was hired by the Postal Service.

She worked for 21 years as a distribution clerk.

146 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Escondido, California, 8/10/89

SUMMARY

In Escondido, California, on August 10, 1989, John

Merlin Taylor, a USPS carrier, shot and killed his

wife and two postal carriers, Richard Berni and

Ronald Williams; wounded a USPS clerk; and shot

himself. According to the investigation, Taylor

believed that postal management was out to get him.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On the day of the incident, John Merlin Taylor shot

and killed his wife while she was asleep in their bedroom. Taylor then drove to the Escondido Post Office where he worked. Taylor approached postal

carriers Richard Berni and Ronald Williams, with

whom he regularly drank his morning coffee. He

shot and killed them both while they sat outside the

postal facility. Taylor then entered the facility and

looked toward the area where the manager's office

was located. He fired several rounds and wounded a

postal clerk. After wounding the clerk, Taylor

smoked a cigarette and then shot himself. Taylor

was transported to the hospital where he was declared brain dead. After several days, Taylor's life

support was disconnected.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

During the investigation, a suicide note was found in

Taylor's family residence. Taylor wrote, "I'm hurting

a lot for my age anyway and only have pain to look

forward too [sic]. I'm really ready to go and these

a******* have given me a reason. I'm not crazy,

just old fashioned. If you have any questions see

[Mr. X], he'll explain. Don't let this destroy your

lives. I love you all. Love, old Dad."

Mr. X was a personal friend of both Taylor and his

wife, but he did not understand why Taylor named

him in the suicide note. He said that Taylor appeared

to be a good-natured person and happily married.

However, Mr. X felt that Taylor was trying to

resolve deep personal conflicts. He said that Taylor

had been increasingly paranoid, felt that postal

management was out to get him, and felt that he

might not make it to retirement.

A local union official said that Taylor was exhibiting

signs of a degenerative mental state. The union

official said that Taylor was totally paranoid and felt

that postal management and inspectors were out to

get him. For example, when postage due money was

left for his collection from his customers, Taylor

believed it was "test money" placed by postal

management or postal inspectors. According to the

union official, Taylor also believed his coworkers

and his wife were conspiring to get him fired. When

the phone rang at the post office Taylor was sure it

was his wife calling postal management. Taylor also

thought people were watching him at work.

During the investigation after the homicide, the

union official said he felt that Taylor knew he had a

mental condition. However, he felt Taylor was reluctant to seek help from the employee assistance

program because of his mistrust of postal management. The union official said Taylor never mentioned killing himself or others. The union official

had not believed that Taylor was dangerous.

The investigation found no evidence to indicate that

Taylor had a substance abuse problem. Taylor had

no criminal or violent history.

It is unknown how Taylor acquired the gun used in

the homicides.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 147
EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

USPS

According to the investigative report, conditions

within the postal facility may have added to Taylor's

agitated mental state. Taylor was a heavy smoker

and may have been affected when his postal facility

introduced a no-smoking policy. In addition, USPS

policy forbade carriers from coming in early from

their routes and sorting their next day's mail. This

policy seemed to frustrate Taylor because it

prevented him from being the first one out on his

route, which he preferred.

Military

Taylor was a veteran of the military. He was discharged under honorable conditions.

148 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Chelsea, Massachusetts, 6/29/88

SUMMARY

On June 29, 1988, postal clerk Domenic Lupoli shot

and killed postal clerk Lisa M. Bruni at the Chelsea,

Massachusetts, Incoming Mail Center. Later the

same night, he shot and killed himself. Lupoli was

under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. The day before the shooting, Bruni gave her

supervisor a formal letter alleging that Lupoli was

harassing and threatening her. Lupoli also had

harassed and threatened coworkers at a previous

job.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On July 29, 1998, at 10:00 p.m., gunshots were

heard outside the Chelsea Incoming Mail Center. In

the parking lot, Lisa M. Bruni was found dead.

The police arrived quickly. After speaking with

several of the victim's coworkers, they identified

Lupoli as a suspect. Lupoli had been seen in the

parking lot just before the shooting, but had not

reported to work. The day before the shooting,

Bruni had requested permission from her supervisor

to speak to her union steward about a problem she

was having with Lupoli. The union steward assisted

Bruni in preparing a letter claiming that Lupoli was

harassing and threatening her. Later the same day,

Bruni gave her supervisor the letter. After including

a cover memo, the supervisor placed the letter in the

manager's in-box. When the manager received the

letter, he discussed the situation with his management staff and decided to visit the Incoming Mail

Center the following day to discuss the matter with

the involved parties. The shooting took place before

the manager arrived. The letter was not given to the

Postal Inspection Service until after the homicide.

Approximately two hours after the shooting, a

police officer noticed a man fitting Lupoli's

description sitting in a car with a shotgun under his

chin. When he approached the car, Lupoli shot

himself.

The following items were recovered from Lupoli's

car and locker: handcuffs, adhesive tape, shotgun

shells, a chain, a hunting knife, Nunchucks, rope,

and a fictional book about a violent homicide of a

young woman. Investigators believe that Lupoli was

planning to kidnap Bruni and shot her when she

resisted.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

An autopsy revealed that Lupoli was under the

influence of alcohol at the time of his suicide. There

is no documentation of a history of substance abuse.

A criminal record check disclosed that in October

1977 Lupoli was convicted of unlawful possession

of a firearm and was sentenced to one year's

probation. This information was not included on

Lupoli's USPS employment application.

It is unknown how Lupoli acquired the gun used in

the homicide.

The investigation revealed that Lupoli had

threatened two non-postal coworkers before he

worked for the Postal Service.

There is no evidence that Lupoli had a history of

mental health problems.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 149
EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Lupoli worked at a hospital from 1973 until 1977. A

former coworker told postal inspectors that she

remembered Lupoli because he was discharged for

numerous problems including poor attendance. After

Lupoli's termination from the hospital, two former

coworkers received threatening letters. One of the

letters was signed by Lupoli and contained veiled

threats. The other letter was unsigned and described

explicit acts of violence that were intended for the

recipients of the letter. The matter was apparently

investigated by the FBI.

From 1978 to 1986, Lupoli worked for a bakery.

The owner of the bakery said that Lupoli was quiet

and a good, dependable worker.

Lupoli began working for the Postal Service in

January 1986 and worked there for two years. In

December 1987, Bruni asked management and her

union to help her because she objected to advances

from Lupoli. Managers and a union steward met

with each of them and advised them on USPS's

sexual harassment policy. Lupoli admitted that he

liked Bruni but denied that he was harassing her.

Bruni did not want to file any charges at that time.

The supervisors did not hear anything of the matter

again until the day before the shooting.

Lupoli was not a veteran.

150 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Edmond, Oklahoma, 8/20/86

SUMMARY

On August 20, 1986, USPS letter carrier Patrick

Henry Sherrill shot and killed 14 coworkers and

wounded six other postal employees at the

Edmond, Oklahoma, Post Office. Sherrill then shot

and killed himself. Sherrill was considered a poor

employee and was formally disciplined. He was

hired despite a poor federal employment history.

Apparently, USPS management in Oklahoma City

did not check job and personal references that

would have excluded Sherrill from employment.

Sherrill told friends and coworkers that he was

unhappy with treatment by his supervisors and

made vague threats that he would harm people at

work. These threats were not reported to Postal

Service management.

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

On August 20, 1986, Sherrill went to work as

usual. He soon left his workspace and shot his

supervisor and a city carrier. He then walked

through the facility and continued to fire shots,

killing 13 coworkers. He then followed fleeing

employees outside to the parking lot where he fired

on them, killing one. He returned to the interior of

the post office and shot and killed himself. In

addition to killing 14 coworkers, Sherrill wounded

six employees.

The day before the shooting, Sherrill had a

discussion with his supervisors about his poor

performance on the job. There is evidence that the

shootings were premeditated and were motivated

by his frustrations with his job. This evidence

includes notes in his handwriting itemizing

instances of unfair treatment at work and reports

from his friends that he felt he was being treated

unfairly at work.

MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

HISTORY

Investigators found a large number of guns and

ammunition in Sherrill's home. He did not have a

civilian or military criminal record. Sherrill grew up

in Oklahoma City and was an average student and

athlete. His childhood friends considered him quiet,

shy, and introspective and said he associated with

only a few people. As an adult, neighbors described him as strange and solitary. Neighbors reported that he had a reputation as a peeping tom,

was cruel to animals, and was nicknamed "Crazy

Pat" in the neighborhood.

Sherrill was in good physical health. He did not

smoke or use alcohol or drugs. The investigation

found no evidence that he ever sought or received

psychological or psychiatric care, although he did

receive pastoral counseling in the fall of 1982. He

sought this counseling while in the Marines because he wanted to pursue a romantic relationship

with a woman but felt that he was unable to interact well socially. While in the Marines, Sherrill

threatened a supervisor with a gun. A high school

friend of Sherrill's said he had conversations with

him about Sherrill's father's mental state and Sherrill's fear that he would inherit the disease. Sherrill's

family members denied any mental illness in the

family history.

EMPLOYMENT AND MILITARY

HISTORY

Military

Sherrill was in the Marines for three years and a

college student for about five years. He was

employed by the federal government seven times

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 151
for a total of less than three years. He was

employed in the private sector for a total of about

four years. He served in reserve status for 20 years

with the Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force

Reserve, and Oklahoma Air National Guard.

Investigators characterized the jobs Sherrill held

before he joined the Postal Service as "unskilled,

temporary or part-time positions" and said his

private-sector employment was "generally unremarkable."

Sherrill served in the Marines in Vietnam and

received an honorable discharge.

In the public sector, Sherrill worked for the

Federal Aviation Administration, where female

workers complained that he made sexual innuendoes. In addition, a female employee complained

that Sherrill had blocked her from leaving an elevator. Sherrill offered to resign rather than be

fired. While he was employed by a Veterans Administration hospital, his work performance was

described as poor. Sherrill's supervisor fired him,

but rescinded the firing because of his veteran

status. Sherrill resigned in lieu of termination. His

final personnel action VA Form 4650 listed the

reason for his resignation as "personal difficulties

that could not be reconciled."

USPS

Sherrill passed several USPS exams and was

placed on seven separate hiring registers from

1979 to 1986. In 1982, he was accepted for the

position of distribution clerk. However, Sherrill

was unable to pass a scheme exam during the probationary period and he resigned rather than face

termination. His personnel action form was coded

to reflect that he resigned while charges were being

prepared against him. Sherrill's supervisor indicated in his official personnel folder that his

productivity and work were poor. After his resignation, Sherrill continued to seek Postal Service

employment and took additional exams. He was

considered for a city letter carrier position and was

ultimately rejected because of his poor work

history with the Postal Service, only to be offered

employment after the supervisor of employment

placement at Oklahoma City decided he could not

be passed over without "significant justification"

because he was a veteran. There is no record of the

Postal Service contacting any of Sherrill's

employment or character references during the preemployment screening process. A request for

Sherrill's records of previous federal employment

was made, but these records were not received or

reviewed by the Postal Service before it hired

Sherrill. Investigation into Sherrill's hiring concluded that "it appears that this decision (to not

hire Sherrill) was overruled because sufficient justification did not exist when, in fact, no effort had

been made to determine if sufficient justification

existed."

During his probationary period, Sherrill was found

deficient or not meeting expectations in several

areas. His supervisors agreed that poor performance was sufficient for termination, but a manager in Oklahoma City said that additional justification was needed because Sherrill was a veteran.

Sherrill's poor performance continued after his

probationary period. He was suspended in 1985 for

abandonment of mail at an apartment complex. In

1986, he was suspended for failure to discharge his

duties effectively and was issued a letter of

warning for failure to follow instructions for

authorized use of overtime. There were numerous

other instances when he was informally warned

about his poor performance, including the day before the shooting.

In the summer of 1986, Sherrill complained to

friends and family about aspects of his job as a carrier. None of these complaints were reported to

postal management before the incident. Specifically, he complained to a fellow employee about

his boss and said that he would like to "get back at

his boss." The same employee reported that Sherrill said to him that "the only good thing about

Vietnam was that you could kill."

152 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
A postal customer told investigators that Sherrill

told him that "one of these days I'm going to kill

every one of them" in a conversation about

Sherrill's troubles at work. A distribution clerk

described an incident in 1986 in which Sherrill, in

reference to a dispute he was having with a

supervisor, said, "I'm going to get even and

everybody's going to know."

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 153
Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Job Type of Postal Victims

and Perpetrators

We analyzed workplace homicides involving postal

employees as victims or perpetrators for any

statistical patterns by gender, race/ethnicity, or job

type. We calculated annual rates per 100,000

workers for employee subgroups, as shown in

Chart B.1. The only statistically significant results

were the following:

? Managers were more likely than average to be

victims of homicide by employees, and to be

victims of homicide overall.

? Men were more likely than women to commit

homicide.

Chart B.1: Postal Victims and Perpetrators of Workplace Homicide, 1986-1999: 

Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Job Type

Victims of non-employees

Victims of former/current 

employees All victims Perpetrators

N

Annual rate per 

100,000 workers N

Annual rate per 

100,000 workers N

Annual rate per 

100,000 workers N

Annual rate per 

100,000 workers

Total 14 0.12 34 0.28 48 0.40 15 0.13

Male 7 0.09 21 0.28 28 0.37 14 0.19 **

Female 7 0.16 13 0.29 20 0.45 1 0.02 **

White 6 0.07 14 0.17 20 0.25 7 0.09

Black 4 0.16 5 0.20 9 0.36 7 0.28

Hispanic 1 0.14 1 0.14 2 0.27 1 0.14

Other 3 0.50 - 3 0.50 0 -

Missing 14 14

HQ/Area/Regional Staff 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Managers/Professionals 4 0.37 9 0.84 * 13 1.21 * 0 -

Clerks/MV Operators/Maintenance 1 0.02 14 0.30 15 0.32 7 0.15

Mail Handlers 0 - 2 0.26 2 0.26 1 0.13

City Letter Carriers 7 0.21 5 0.15 12 0.36 5 0.15

Rural Carriers 1 0.16 4 0.64 5 0.80 0 -

Noncareer 1 0.07 0 - 1 0.07 2 0.14

* Rate is significantly different from total rate (p<0.01)

** Rates for males and females differ significantly (p<0.01)

154 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Endnotes

1

 This description is based on newspaper articles.

2 USPS Office of Inspector General, Violence Prevention

Policies and Procedures, Milwaukee District Compliance,

September 30, 1998, LM-AR-98-002.

3

 This description is based on newspaper articles.

Appendix B Homicide Summaries 155
Appendix C Survey Data 157

Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies............................................................................. 159

Table C.2: Victimization In Past Year By Employee And Facility Characteristics..... 199

Table C.3: Co-Worker Victimization In Past Year

 By Selected Facility Characteristics.......................................................................... 208

Table C.4: Summary Indices Of Attitudes And Psychological Measures.................... 209

Appendix C: Survey Data
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q1 How many jobs for pay do you currently have?

1 87.1

2 11.3

3 or more 1.5

TOTAL 100.0

Q1 How long have you worked at the Postal Service?

National questionnaire only: If you currently have more than one job, please answer the following 

questions with regard to your PRIMARY job, that is the job at which you work the most hours

per week.

Q2 How long have you worked for your primary employer?

Less than 1 month 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3

1 to 12 months 17.2 6.0 6.0 5.4 11.1 5.7 6.1 0.6

1 to 3 years 25.0 13.8 11.3 15.2 20.7 16.9 9.6 2.2

4 to 5 years 10.4 9.0 8.8 9.1 13.3 10.6 5.7 2.8

6 to 10 years 16.2 12.0 11.5 11.1 17.6 15.2 12.5 6.3

11 to 20 years 17.5 36.7 40.0 37.4 27.0 36.6 30.3 40.4

21 to 30 years 9.5 17.0 16.7 16.8 8.5 9.3 27.0 36.4

31 or more years 2.3 5.4 5.5 5.1 1.8 5.5 8.4 11.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2 Q3 How many people work at your primary indoor work location?

10 or less 21.8 16.6 2.7 15.2 37.1 10.1 84.3 9.1

11 to 25 14.8 15.6 12.0 15.3 26.0 21.5 7.3 12.3

26 to 50 13.5 17.1 27.0 13.2 17.3 13.0 3.3 13.8

51 to 75 7.5 11.3 20.0 8.8 8.9 5.1 1.3 8.7

76 to 100 6.7 10.9 20.0 8.3 5.8 6.0 1.1 9.5

101 to 500 19.1 18.5 17.2 23.7 4.8 20.5 2.0 24.3

501 or more 15.7 9.4 0.6 14.4 0.0 22.7 0.4 21.8

Don't work indoors 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q3 How many hours do you work in an average week?

Q4 How many hours do you work for that employer in an average week?

20 hours or less 4.8 7.3 0.7 4.0 32.3 0.6 34.9

21 to 30 hours 7.0 4.1 1.9 5.2 10.0 0.8 2.9 0.2

31 to 40 hours 41.5 41.1 28.5 55.1 25.0 52.9 32.5 28.7

41 to 50 hours 37.7 43.0 63.6 32.7 31.2 36.8 26.5 60.0

51 hours or more 9.0 4.5 5.2 3.0 1.5 8.9 3.2 11.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q5 Do you usually work...

Nights 7.0

Days 82.1

Other 2.1

My schedule changes often 8.9

TOTAL 100.0

Q4 Do you usually work...

Tour 1 (about 11 PM to 7:30 AM) 11.8 0.7 21.3 0.2 29.3 0.5 7.8

Tour 2 (about 7:30 AM to 4 PM) 68.0 94.1 46.6 94.7 28.5 88.5 75.4

Tour 3 (about 3 PM to 11:30 PM) 13.6 0.9 23.5 0.1 40.0 0.0 8.1

My schedule changes often 6.6 4.4 8.6 5.0 2.2 10.9 8.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

a a My job requires that I learn new things

Strongly agree 54.6 37.6 33.5 34.1 39.2 14.9 80.0 69.9

Somewhat agree 36.1 39.9 45.8 38.5 48.3 37.2 18.6 25.3

Neither 4.9 7.6 7.7 8.4 5.9 14.7 0.6 1.9

Somewhat disagree 2.6 8.0 7.0 10.1 4.7 15.2 0.6 1.8

Strongly disagree 1.8 7.0 6.0 8.9 1.9 18.0 0.2 1.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

b b My job involves a lot of repetitive work

Strongly agree 38.7 68.8 76.6 67.9 76.9 73.4 54.9 32.9

Somewhat agree 37.3 23.9 19.8 23.9 20.2 20.1 36.6 42.6

Neither 9.3 3.3 1.8 3.8 1.5 2.3 4.5 9.7

Somewhat disagree 8.8 2.6 0.8 3.1 1.0 2.3 2.6 9.8

Strongly disagree 5.9 1.4 1.0 1.3 0.4 1.9 1.3 5.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

c c On my job, I have very little freedom to decide how I do my work

Strongly agree 7.4 19.6 28.6 20.2 8.7 18.7 7.9 7.4

Somewhat agree 16.0 28.2 33.5 26.9 28.6 25.7 26.1 18.1

Neither 9.0 13.4 12.0 14.2 16.7 13.5 14.0 7.9

Somewhat disagree 32.1 25.9 20.0 25.8 33.0 25.7 31.6 33.8

Strongly disagree 35.5 12.9 5.9 12.8 13.1 16.4 20.4 32.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

d d I get to do a variety of different things on my job

Strongly agree 49.1 25.2 15.2 27.6 18.3 22.4 57.5 46.2

Somewhat agree 36.3 34.0 29.1 35.2 39.4 33.8 34.1 37.1

Neither 5.6 11.0 16.2 8.3 14.7 9.8 3.9 6.2

Somewhat disagree 6.0 14.8 20.1 13.2 17.2 14.9 3.2 6.9

Strongly disagree 3.0 14.8 19.5 15.6 10.4 19.1 1.3 3.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

e e I have a lot to say about what happens on my job

Strongly agree 26.1 9.1 6.0 8.7 5.9 9.1 19.0 23.4

Somewhat agree 36.6 23.3 19.2 20.6 28.5 19.9 38.1 41.6

Neither 14.0 16.6 14.7 17.3 23.1 14.6 17.1 9.7

Somewhat disagree 13.9 22.5 25.9 21.9 24.9 20.2 15.2 14.4

Strongly disagree 9.4 28.5 34.2 31.4 17.7 36.2 10.6 10.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

f f I am not asked to do an excessive amount of work

Strongly agree 16.0 12.1 6.3 13.5 17.2 11.1 24.0 10.7

Somewhat agree 30.1 27.3 20.2 31.1 33.9 23.6 29.3 24.1

Neither 16.0 16.7 14.1 17.7 19.9 16.0 15.6 16.0

Somewhat disagree 23.8 24.2 29.6 22.3 18.9 23.3 18.6 27.3

Strongly disagree 14.2 19.8 29.8 15.3 10.0 25.9 12.4 21.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

g g I have enough time to get the job done

Strongly agree 26.5 19.3 7.7 22.8 32.6 22.2 28.5 12.6

Somewhat agree 36.9 34.3 29.5 35.6 40.8 36.5 34.4 31.0

Neither 9.5 10.3 9.3 11.8 8.0 12.3 5.2 9.5

Somewhat disagree 19.1 22.6 32.2 19.5 13.4 17.3 20.1 26.8

Strongly disagree 8.0 13.5 21.3 10.2 5.3 11.7 11.7 20.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

h h I am responsible for counseling my subordinates or helping them solve their problems

Strongly agree 24.3 9.2 5.9 5.9 3.5 5.5 32.6 42.1

Somewhat agree 25.5 13.0 8.2 13.2 11.7 9.9 25.5 28.7

Neither 27.0 34.5 37.1 33.9 43.8 32.6 28.3 18.1

Somewhat disagree 8.6 9.0 11.2 8.6 10.3 8.4 3.3 4.2

Strongly disagree 14.5 34.2 37.6 38.4 30.7 43.6 10.3 6.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

i i My responsibilities in my job are more for tasks than for people

Strongly agree 17.9 27.1 26.1 32.0 17.3 38.7 10.0 16.8

Somewhat agree 22.0 26.9 26.9 27.9 25.2 27.8 22.0 26.0

Neither 17.2 18.5 20.0 17.5 20.3 16.3 20.6 16.5

Somewhat disagree 20.0 15.9 15.4 13.3 20.8 8.7 27.7 25.8

Strongly disagree 22.9 11.6 11.6 9.2 16.4 8.5 19.7 14.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

j j I can always rely on my co-workers for support when things get rough at work

Strongly agree 29.4 17.6 12.6 15.3 29.1 14.4 41.8 19.6

Somewhat agree 41.8 37.0 37.1 36.4 39.3 32.3 32.3 44.1

Neither 10.9 12.8 15.0 12.5 10.9 11.0 15.1 10.3

Somewhat disagree 11.1 17.2 18.3 18.6 12.7 19.6 7.1 16.5

Strongly disagree 6.8 15.4 17.0 17.2 8.1 22.7 3.7 9.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5 Q6 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

k k Job security is very important to me

Strongly agree 68.6 81.0 80.9 82.2 78.5 84.7 76.8 77.1

Somewhat agree 21.3 14.2 14.5 13.2 16.1 11.1 16.4 17.3

Neither 5.7 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.8 2.5 4.9 3.4

Somewhat disagree 2.7 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.2

Strongly disagree 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 1.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

a a Management does everything possible to prevent accidents in our work

Strongly agree 43.6 26.9 18.4 22.8 43.9 14.2 67.4 43.0

Somewhat agree 35.1 35.7 38.7 35.0 36.5 29.5 25.3 39.8

Neither 8.2 7.7 8.5 8.6 5.6 8.2 3.2 5.4

Somewhat disagree 9.1 17.0 20.6 19.0 9.3 20.8 2.5 8.3

Strongly disagree 3.9 12.8 13.8 14.5 4.8 27.4 1.7 3.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

b b Management is doing its best to give us good working conditions

Strongly agree 39.4 21.5 13.6 16.3 39.6 11.9 58.6 38.8

Somewhat agree 37.6 33.6 33.8 33.4 34.6 27.9 29.6 40.1

Neither 8.5 10.1 12.1 10.9 7.3 8.9 4.1 6.3

Somewhat disagree 10.1 19.6 23.1 22.0 12.4 23.1 4.8 10.0

Strongly disagree 4.5 15.3 17.4 17.3 6.1 28.2 3.0 4.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

c c My boss gives us credit and praise for work well done

Strongly agree 32.8 19.4 13.1 16.6 32.6 14.2 42.3 29.2

Somewhat agree 35.6 31.2 30.3 31.8 32.2 28.5 29.5 33.9

Neither 10.0 11.6 12.2 12.0 10.5 11.2 11.1 9.6

Somewhat disagree 12.4 15.9 18.9 16.1 11.6 16.3 9.6 13.7

Strongly disagree 9.2 21.9 25.5 23.5 13.2 29.9 7.5 13.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

d d If I have a complaint to make, I feel free to talk to someone up the line

Strongly agree 41.7 24.0 21.5 20.2 36.2 18.8 39.1 31.1

Somewhat agree 34.2 35.2 35.7 36.2 34.8 31.8 31.9 33.9

Neither 6.8 8.3 8.0 8.7 7.2 10.0 9.2 7.2

Somewhat disagree 10.6 15.9 17.1 16.7 12.3 17.2 10.9 14.6

Strongly disagree 6.8 16.6 17.8 18.3 9.6 22.2 8.9 13.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

e e Management tells employees about company plans and developments

Strongly agree 27.3 19.1 16.6 14.4 30.4 13.2 42.7 30.1

Somewhat agree 38.7 38.0 42.6 34.3 37.9 33.2 40.5 45.7

Neither 11.2 11.5 11.0 13.2 11.3 10.8 7.8 7.1

Somewhat disagree 13.3 16.3 17.1 18.5 12.4 17.8 5.9 11.0

Strongly disagree 9.4 15.0 12.7 19.6 8.0 25.0 3.1 6.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

f f My boss has always been fair in dealing with me

Strongly agree 43.5 30.0 22.1 28.0 44.8 25.5 52.8 37.6

Somewhat agree 31.4 32.5 34.3 33.1 29.0 31.8 28.1 31.3

Neither 8.3 9.1 9.9 9.2 7.8 10.6 7.1 7.5

Somewhat disagree 11.1 13.7 15.0 14.4 10.7 14.1 7.2 12.8

Strongly disagree 5.7 14.7 18.6 15.2 7.7 18.0 4.8 10.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6 Q7 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

g g I have confidence in the fairness and honesty of management

Strongly agree 27.2 12.3 8.4 8.6 26.2 7.1 35.5 16.9

Somewhat agree 33.2 25.1 23.6 23.5 31.9 17.7 32.2 32.5

Neither 12.9 13.0 12.6 13.8 12.5 11.7 11.1 13.8

Somewhat disagree 15.9 19.9 21.7 20.7 15.0 22.0 12.8 18.1

Strongly disagree 10.8 29.7 33.7 33.4 14.4 41.5 8.4 18.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q7 If you were offered a job with another employer for the same wages, retirement and fringe

benefits that you have at USPS, would you accept the offer?

Q8 If you were offered a job with another employer for the same wages, retirement and fringe

benefits that you have in your primary job, would you accept the offer?

Definitely accept 9.1 24.8 28.3 26.2 13.6 31.4 12.7 21.7

Probably accept 13.5 20.7 21.3 23.4 14.0 19.6 13.6 19.9

Don't know 29.0 30.2 29.4 28.2 40.0 27.8 34.1 28.8

Probably not accept 28.7 15.5 14.0 14.1 21.0 12.7 22.9 19.0

Definitely not accept 19.7 8.8 6.9 8.1 11.3 8.5 16.7 10.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q8 Q9 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about people generally.

a a Most people don't want to work

Strongly agree 9.1 9.2 8.0 10.8 6.4 14.6 7.1 3.9

Somewhat agree 28.3 26.8 23.7 29.3 29.4 29.7 24.6 17.9

Neither 10.9 11.2 11.9 10.7 13.0 10.5 11.6 8.6

Somewhat disagree 36.2 33.8 34.8 32.0 35.0 29.5 36.4 41.8

Strongly disagree 15.5 19.0 21.5 17.1 16.2 15.7 20.3 27.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q8 Q9 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about people generally.

b b You can generally trust people to do a good job

Strongly agree 6.2 9.4 10.5 8.1 9.4 9.4 12.7 10.9

Somewhat agree 54.2 56.5 57.2 53.8 61.9 47.7 66.2 63.4

Neither 13.7 12.1 12.8 12.3 11.8 14.4 8.1 8.7

Somewhat disagree 22.2 18.2 17.2 20.7 14.3 21.2 11.4 14.9

Strongly disagree 3.8 3.8 2.2 5.1 2.6 7.3 1.6 2.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q8 Q9 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about people generally.

c c Personal problems cannot be allowed to interfere with getting the job done

Strongly agree 40.4 40.8 33.1 44.4 45.6 47.7 47.2 30.0

Somewhat agree 36.9 34.8 36.5 32.6 38.4 28.6 36.3 40.6

Neither 9.3 9.2 9.6 9.6 7.4 8.9 6.2 10.2

Somewhat disagree 11.5 11.9 16.2 10.1 7.3 11.0 8.6 15.8

Strongly disagree 1.9 3.3 4.6 3.2 1.3 3.9 1.6 3.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q8 Q9 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about people generally.

d d Everyone wants to have a sense of accomplishment from work

Strongly agree 54.8 48.8 49.0 46.3 55.8 39.7 61.3 52.1

Somewhat agree 34.0 36.4 37.6 35.8 35.8 37.0 32.0 37.9

Neither 4.6 5.8 6.3 6.6 3.2 8.4 2.6 3.1

Somewhat disagree 5.4 6.5 4.9 8.2 4.1 10.1 2.9 5.1

Strongly disagree 1.2 2.6 2.1 3.2 1.1 4.8 1.2 1.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q8 Q9 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about people generally.

e e People generally need close supervision to make sure the work is done properly

Strongly agree 6.3 6.0 4.5 7.9 2.5 10.6 3.4 3.8

Somewhat agree 28.1 19.8 15.8 21.6 17.7 21.1 26.4 23.7

Neither 14.6 9.9 9.6 9.4 10.7 9.2 13.1 12.1

Somewhat disagree 37.0 39.1 38.7 37.2 46.0 31.6 43.0 45.6

Strongly disagree 14.0 25.1 31.4 23.9 23.2 27.5 14.2 14.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q8 Q9 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about people generally.

f f It's best for people to follow instructions without raising too many questions

Strongly agree 5.4 6.6 6.7 7.1 5.2 10.1 4.8 3.2

Somewhat agree 20.7 22.0 19.2 23.5 25.0 22.1 24.4 17.4

Neither 12.8 12.8 13.3 12.5 13.1 13.1 13.2 12.6

Somewhat disagree 40.7 36.7 36.4 34.5 40.1 32.2 43.0 45.6

Strongly disagree 20.4 21.9 24.4 22.4 16.6 22.6 14.7 21.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q9 Q10 During the past 12 months have you personally been discriminated against because of your...

(Mark all that apply.)

Race or ethnicity 4.1 9.3 8.9 10.6 2.4 15.2 2.4 12.6

Gender 5.0 9.3 8.7 10.2 5.8 11.9 4.1 12.3

Physical health problem or disability 2.3 8.8 12.5 9.0 2.6 12.3 1.5 3.7

Mental health problem or disability 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.1 0.4 2.3 0.4 1.2

None of these 88.0 79.0 77.0 76.7 91.5 70.6 93.4 78.9

Q10 Q11 Which of the following causes you the MOST fear for your safety at work?

Customers 7.1 4.1 3.9 5.1 1.5 0.5 11.7 2.6

Other non-employees 5.0 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.0 1.8 2.4 3.2

Supervisors or managers 2.2 7.0 9.6 7.3 2.8 9.2 1.1 3.1

People who report to you 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.2 5.9

Other employees 4.1 11.9 8.0 16.4 3.9 19.8 1.8 11.9

Vehicle accidents 7.4 11.5 17.6 3.1 39.8 4.5 1.6 3.3

Equipment accidents 12.1 11.9 3.7 19.2 2.3 31.0 0.9 2.8

Dogs 0.7 9.6 26.9 0.8 15.5 0.3 0.3

Other 7.2 3.2 3.5 3.6 1.6 3.5 3.4 2.4

I don't fear for my safety at work 53.8 38.3 25.2 42.1 31.4 29.4 74.6 64.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q11 Q12 Is the place you work open to the general public? That is, can anyone who wants to 

come into your work area?

Yes 49.1 29.3 35.5 29.5 18.9 24.3 27.0 28.1

No 50.9 70.7 64.5 70.5 81.1 75.7 73.0 71.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q12 Q13 What kind of security is in place where you work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Receptionist or guard who checks 

people as they come in 39.6 11.6 3.5 14.9 1.4 26.7 1.2 32.1

Burglar alarm system 25.1 17.4 22.7 16.2 19.5 4.9 10.5 17.9

Guard dogs 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.1

Surveillance cameras 26.0 25.7 19.9 32.1 9.3 44.3 2.9 33.4

Police or guards for protection 14.6 7.5 1.7 10.9 0.1 19.5 0.1 14.9

An entryway or gate that is kept 

locked during working hours 17.1 29.1 19.7 31.0 39.3 29.8 36.8 31.2

A required pass or ID to enter 25.1 34.5 13.5 48.7 8.4 68.5 13.2 54.2

None of these 31.8 30.6 46.2 21.0 40.0 14.9 47.9 16.1

Q13 Q14 How often does your job require you to handle money or valuables?

Daily 29.5 48.9 63.0 36.7 76.2 19.4 91.3 23.3

Weekly 7.2 9.2 16.0 5.2 13.9 4.2 4.4 5.8

Monthly 3.4 2.8 4.7 2.2 2.2 1.0 0.3 3.3

Less than once a month 11.2 7.0 8.3 6.1 3.8 7.1 1.5 15.1

Never 48.8 32.2 8.0 49.8 4.0 68.3 2.4 52.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

a a Air pollution from dust, smoke, gas, fumes, fibers, or other things.

Strongly agree 25.0 45.4 47.3 50.7 35.2 65.9 11.2 22.8

Somewhat agree 22.8 26.3 28.3 25.2 30.2 23.2 18.9 25.9

Neither 10.9 7.9 8.6 6.1 11.5 3.7 15.4 10.2

Somewhat disagree 10.3 7.3 7.1 6.5 7.8 2.9 12.6 12.7

Strongly disagree 31.0 13.2 8.8 11.5 15.4 4.2 41.9 28.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

b b Things placed or stored dangerously.

Strongly agree 6.1 10.1 10.0 12.0 4.0 20.9 1.2 3.7

Somewhat agree 12.9 16.1 18.4 17.7 10.0 22.7 3.4 10.2

Neither 18.9 22.9 25.8 22.6 24.0 22.5 15.7 16.7

Somewhat disagree 18.0 19.4 20.7 19.8 18.6 16.7 12.9 20.4

Strongly disagree 44.0 31.4 25.1 27.9 43.4 17.2 66.8 49.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

c c Dangerous tools, machinery or equipment.

Strongly agree 10.8 9.6 5.6 13.9 2.2 23.3 0.6 3.8

Somewhat agree 15.9 16.5 16.2 20.2 7.9 26.2 1.9 10.1

Neither 15.4 20.9 25.3 18.8 23.2 20.6 15.6 15.0

Somewhat disagree 12.2 17.8 21.2 17.0 17.9 14.4 9.9 17.0

Strongly disagree 45.7 35.2 31.6 30.1 48.8 15.5 71.9 54.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

d d Excessive noise.

Strongly agree 14.8 21.5 13.4 31.0 5.3 48.2 0.9 9.5

Somewhat agree 18.3 22.1 24.2 24.6 12.8 29.4 3.0 19.5

Neither 14.6 16.0 22.4 12.0 20.8 8.6 15.7 13.6

Somewhat disagree 13.7 15.0 19.7 12.1 19.1 7.7 11.2 16.9

Strongly disagree 38.5 25.4 20.2 20.3 42.0 6.1 69.2 40.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

e e Cramped or unsafe workspace (workspace is too small to do my job safely).

Strongly agree 5.3 18.3 20.6 19.4 12.7 28.8 6.8 8.7

Somewhat agree 9.3 18.7 20.0 19.7 16.7 22.9 9.7 12.5

Neither 18.0 17.2 18.0 17.8 15.7 17.9 13.2 14.1

Somewhat disagree 16.0 17.4 19.0 17.3 18.0 15.0 11.4 16.7

Strongly disagree 51.3 28.4 22.3 25.8 36.9 15.5 59.0 48.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

f f Dangerous neighborhoods where I work.

Strongly agree 4.6 5.8 8.8 5.4 1.3 8.2 0.7 4.9

Somewhat agree 9.0 11.8 20.1 9.3 6.6 9.9 2.2 11.4

Neither 15.4 21.1 19.1 23.3 18.8 29.0 14.5 15.4

Somewhat disagree 10.9 16.1 19.5 15.3 18.8 11.5 8.2 13.0

Strongly disagree 60.0 45.1 32.4 46.8 54.5 41.4 74.4 55.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

g g Dangerous neighborhoods when I travel to work.

Strongly agree 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.6 0.7 8.3 0.6 4.0

Somewhat agree 7.8 7.8 7.8 9.6 1.3 11.2 1.0 9.9

Neither 16.5 22.2 24.1 22.4 19.0 29.5 14.0 16.2

Somewhat disagree 11.2 16.4 21.1 15.6 16.3 12.6 7.7 12.6

Strongly disagree 60.4 49.6 43.2 47.8 62.7 38.5 76.8 57.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

h h Work outside in the dark.

Strongly agree 4.3 4.6 10.9 2.6 1.4 2.9 0.2 2.1

Somewhat agree 6.4 9.0 21.2 4.0 6.6 3.4 1.0 5.0

Neither 16.4 21.9 19.3 24.2 18.6 32.8 15.8 16.8

Somewhat disagree 6.7 11.0 16.1 8.9 12.6 7.8 4.8 7.5

Strongly disagree 66.2 53.4 32.5 60.3 60.7 53.1 78.3 68.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

i i Work outside in bad weather.

Strongly agree 7.8 26.8 63.7 5.5 48.1 6.3 1.4 3.6

Somewhat agree 11.0 15.6 23.4 8.0 35.2 7.5 3.9 9.5

Neither 15.0 15.5 3.3 23.6 6.5 29.8 17.0 16.2

Somewhat disagree 7.0 5.9 4.3 7.0 3.7 7.3 6.2 8.1

Strongly disagree 59.3 36.3 5.3 55.9 6.5 49.1 71.5 62.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q14 Q15 Please indicate whether you agree that your job exposes you to...

j j Unsafe practices of co-workers.

Strongly agree 3.9 7.6 6.6 9.1 2.6 18.9 0.6 2.8

Somewhat agree 9.7 19.3 17.8 24.0 8.1 33.2 2.6 13.2

Neither 18.1 23.1 30.2 20.7 24.3 18.0 15.3 17.2

Somewhat disagree 13.4 17.5 21.7 16.5 17.9 12.5 8.7 16.6

Strongly disagree 54.9 32.5 23.7 29.7 47.1 17.4 72.8 50.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q15 Q16 In the last year, about how often did you see someone at your work doing each of the following?

a a Verbal abuse such as shouting, swearing or trying to provoke an argument; calling someone a name

or putting them down in front of others; making intimidating or threatening gestures; etc.

Daily 9.7 12.8 17.1 13.3 5.0 20.4 0.8 5.9

Weekly 11.8 13.9 16.7 14.3 9.5 17.6 2.2 11.4

Monthly 11.4 10.2 10.5 11.3 7.1 11.7 3.0 11.2

Once or twice a month 23.9 19.9 20.0 21.2 15.5 22.5 6.8 24.1

Never 43.2 43.2 35.7 39.9 63.0 27.8 87.2 47.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q15 Q16 In the last year, about how often did you see someone at your work doing each of the following?

b b Physical abuse such as throwing something at someone; pushing, shoving, slapping, hitting,

kicking or biting someone; hitting someone with an object; beating someone up; etc.

Daily 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.2

Weekly 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.3 0.3 2.0 0.8

Monthly 3.7 2.7 2.6 3.0 1.5 4.8 0.6 2.1

Once or twice a month 8.6 4.6 5.3 4.9 1.5 9.4 0.6 3.4

Never 84.2 90.7 89.8 89.8 96.6 82.5 98.8 93.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q15 Q16 In the last year, about how often did you see someone at your work doing each of the following?

c c Violence such as using or threatening to use a gun, knife or other weapon on someone.

Daily 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1

Weekly 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.3

Monthly 1.9 1.3 0.8 1.7 1.0 2.3 0.5 1.0

Once or twice a month 4.7 2.0 2.1 2.1 0.5 4.6 0.3 2.1

Never 92.4 96.0 96.6 95.3 98.2 91.9 99.1 96.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q15 Q16 In the last year, about how often did you see someone at your work doing each of the following?

d d Sexual harassment such as telling stories about their sexual attributes or behavior; repeated 

unwanted requests for someone to go out "socially" or on dates; trying to kiss, fondle or touch 

someone in a sexual way when not encouraged; etc.

Daily 3.5 4.7 5.2 5.1 1.3 10.6 0.2 2.2

Weekly 4.8 5.6 6.6 6.1 2.6 8.0 0.3 4.8

Monthly 6.3 5.2 5.1 6.3 2.9 6.6 1.4 4.1

Once or twice a month 11.8 10.6 11.7 11.4 5.4 13.9 2.8 12.3

Never 73.6 73.8 71.4 71.0 87.8 60.9 95.3 76.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q15 Q16 In the last year, about how often did you see someone at your work doing each of the following?

e e Carrying a gun or other weapon to work.

Daily 2.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.1 1.4 3.3

Weekly 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1

Monthly 1.5 1.0 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.7

Once or twice a month 3.3 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.7

Never 92.1 97.0 98.0 96.3 99.1 94.7 99.4 95.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

a a The people where I work are generally polite and respectful of each other.

Strongly agree 44.0 28.2 23.6 22.2 47.7 18.3 71.3 32.0

Somewhat agree 43.3 47.3 51.1 49.7 37.4 48.8 21.9 50.1

Neither 4.0 6.0 6.9 6.7 3.4 6.3 2.5 5.5

Somewhat disagree 6.2 12.9 13.4 14.7 8.8 17.0 2.9 9.3

Strongly disagree 2.5 5.5 5.0 6.8 2.6 9.6 1.5 3.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

b The Employee Assistance Program is used by managers and supervisors to punish employees.

Strongly agree 5.5 7.2 5.2 2.8 8.1 3.7 2.6

Somewhat agree 9.5 12.1 10.3 5.9 10.9 3.4 3.1

Neither 41.0 44.3 41.8 49.3 40.2 28.0 17.1

Somewhat disagree 12.9 13.3 13.5 10.1 15.2 8.2 13.2

Strongly disagree 31.1 23.0 29.1 31.9 25.7 56.7 64.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

c The USPS takes action to protect employees against violence by non-employees (such as

customers, robbers, etc.)

b My employer takes action to protect employees against violence by non-employees (such

as customers, robbers, etc.)

Strongly agree 38.8 19.3 15.4 18.2 22.7 16.9 33.3 29.5

Somewhat agree 31.4 33.0 33.4 32.1 32.3 31.7 33.6 39.0

Neither 19.3 23.2 21.9 24.1 28.3 26.3 16.8 15.3

Somewhat disagree 6.6 14.5 18.0 14.5 10.8 13.1 10.2 10.5

Strongly disagree 3.9 10.0 11.3 11.0 5.9 12.0 6.2 5.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

d USPS policies make it difficult for employees to protect themselves.

c My employer's policies make it difficult for employees to protect themselves.

Strongly agree 4.7 10.6 11.6 11.0 7.9 15.0 6.0 6.4

Somewhat agree 8.7 23.7 27.9 23.4 20.8 24.6 17.2 16.1

Neither 22.3 29.5 31.2 29.4 32.8 27.8 23.2 22.7

Somewhat disagree 20.8 20.5 19.7 20.6 19.8 19.1 22.4 24.5

Strongly disagree 43.6 15.8 9.6 15.5 18.7 13.5 31.2 30.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

e Many USPS managers and supervisors try to provoke employees to act violently.

d Many managers and supervisors at my work try to provoke employees to act violently.

Strongly agree 2.4 9.8 13.1 10.5 3.8 14.8 2.4 2.6

Somewhat agree 3.1 17.1 20.1 18.9 9.7 23.8 5.0 7.7

Neither 8.8 16.7 17.1 17.2 17.4 18.5 14.6 9.4

Somewhat disagree 7.5 17.9 18.4 18.8 16.8 16.8 12.6 16.0

Strongly disagree 78.2 38.5 31.2 34.5 52.3 26.2 65.4 64.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

f e The use of threats or violence is an effective way to get things done in the workplace.

Strongly agree 0.9 3.3 4.2 3.4 1.7 4.7 0.9 2.1

Somewhat agree 1.5 4.3 6.1 4.3 2.1 4.9 0.9 2.3

Neither 5.7 6.6 7.5 6.5 5.5 8.6 5.2 3.6

Somewhat disagree 4.9 8.2 9.0 8.8 6.6 9.3 4.3 5.6

Strongly disagree 87.0 77.6 73.2 76.9 84.2 72.6 88.7 86.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

g f Employees I work with should not be working here because of their mental or emotional problems.

Strongly agree 3.9 8.1 7.3 9.6 4.5 12.4 3.2 7.3

Somewhat agree 8.6 17.3 15.8 21.0 9.4 21.2 5.9 18.6

Neither 12.4 21.1 24.1 21.5 16.6 22.9 15.0 16.0

Somewhat disagree 11.6 14.9 17.2 15.0 12.3 15.9 6.4 13.3

Strongly disagree 63.4 38.6 35.6 32.9 57.2 27.6 69.6 44.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

h It's hard for the USPS to fire people for threats or violence.

g It's hard for my employer to fire people for threats or violence.

Strongly agree 4.0 15.9 13.9 17.6 7.6 18.1 14.0 27.6

Somewhat agree 9.2 22.2 21.7 22.7 16.5 23.2 21.0 31.1

Neither 14.1 20.3 22.1 19.9 28.3 13.5 20.1 9.0

Somewhat disagree 14.1 17.9 19.6 17.7 18.0 18.0 15.0 13.7

Strongly disagree 58.6 23.6 22.7 22.1 29.6 27.2 29.9 18.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

i h I would definitely be disciplined or punished if I threatened or assaulted someone at work.

Strongly agree 71.5 65.2 63.9 62.8 70.9 65.4 72.5 70.0

Somewhat agree 15.7 22.7 24.5 23.5 19.4 21.4 17.5 21.2

Neither 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.3 4.0 4.7 4.5 2.6

Somewhat disagree 2.2 3.4 3.2 4.2 2.0 3.8 1.6 2.6

Strongly disagree 6.0 3.9 3.4 4.2 3.7 4.7 3.9 3.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q16 Q17 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

j People around here hold grudges.

i People at my work hold grudges.

Strongly agree 11.7 25.6 24.4 30.0 14.0 36.8 7.1 24.3

Somewhat agree 26.9 31.6 32.6 33.4 25.3 32.7 15.7 36.0

Neither 19.0 16.9 18.2 16.5 17.9 14.1 16.6 15.6

Somewhat disagree 18.3 13.0 13.9 12.1 16.3 9.6 12.7 13.4

Strongly disagree 24.2 12.9 10.9 7.9 26.4 6.8 47.9 10.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q17 Since you have been working for the Postal Service, has anyone ever done any of the following

to you while you were working or at work?

Q18 Since you have been working for your primary employer, has anyone ever done any of the following

to you while you were working or at work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Tried to provoke arguments 24.9 43.4 44.6 47.4 22.1 53.2 26.8 51.7

Called you names or put you down 

in front of others 19.9 37.1 41.7 38.4 18.9 45.5 20.7 44.3

Made you feel inadequate 26.8 35.8 38.6 37.7 24.6 33.6 24.3 43.3

Shouted or swore at you 23.6 38.6 39.4 41.2 17.9 48.1 26.5 53.1

Frightened you 6.6 18.0 18.6 19.6 11.0 17.4 14.6 20.8

Made intimidating or threatening 

gestures at you 10.7 23.5 27.1 22.6 10.1 32.9 16.7 31.5

None of these 52.4 38.8 36.2 34.9 61.1 31.1 58.0 29.0

Q18 Q19 Which of the following have EVER done any of these things to you while you were working

or at work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Supervisor or manager 48.2 61.8 68.3 60.3 55.4 57.3 47.9 62.2

Someone who reports to you 9.1 8.5 3.4 5.4 2.2 5.1 31.5 44.8

Other employee 57.6 66.5 59.6 73.8 59.1 80.9 38.4 54.0

Customer 26.7 29.9 44.2 23.3 31.2 3.8 57.7 30.9

Spouse or significant other 3.6 4.0 4.6 3.7 3.5 4.1 3.7 4.8

Other relative or friend 3.5 2.3 1.8 3.0 0.6 3.1 1.6 1.7

Other non-employee 11.7 6.7 9.7 4.9 4.3 6.1 8.8 7.8

Q19 Q20 When did the most recent incident occur?

Within the last month 27.3 20.0 23.0 19.8 17.5 20.8 8.6 16.2

1 to 6 months ago 34.2 26.5 25.6 27.6 29.1 27.6 21.0 22.7

7 to 12 months ago 13.5 14.0 14.8 13.3 17.3 15.1 12.5 11.4

1 to 3 years ago 16.6 23.4 20.7 24.8 24.6 23.3 24.8 24.0

4 or more years ago 8.4 16.0 15.9 14.5 11.6 13.3 33.2 25.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q20 Q21 What happened on that occasion?

(Mark all that apply.)

Tried to provoke arguments 41.3 51.0 52.4 52.5 39.1 57.8 46.9 44.5

Called you names or put you down 

in front of others 31.5 40.6 44.6 39.8 35.7 43.4 30.5 36.6

Made you feel inadequate 50.0 43.7 46.7 42.3 49.9 36.5 41.1 42.3

Shouted or swore at you 43.5 44.8 44.0 44.4 34.3 49.8 50.0 52.4

Frightened you 10.6 18.2 18.9 18.2 19.2 16.1 24.1 15.1

Made intimidating or threatening 

gestures at you 16.9 24.9 28.7 22.6 18.3 29.9 26.4 24.5

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q21 Where did the most recent incident occur?

Customer lobby 5.2 0.8 8.0 2.8 0.2 25.6 4.9

Over the phone 2.7 2.1 1.9 3.4 0.7 11.3 7.9

Workroom floor 72.2 72.2 75.8 72.6 89.4 43.1 45.2

Break room or cafeteria 1.9 1.1 2.8 0.5 2.9 0.7 1.3

USPS parking lot 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.1 0.4 0.9 1.5

Other USPS premises 10.2 6.1 9.4 6.2 4.9 15.3 36.0

On a delivery route 5.4 15.4 0.3 11.1 0.2 1.1 0.7

Other non-USPS premises 1.1 0.9 0.7 1.3 1.2 2.1 2.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q22 Q22 Who did this to you the most recent time?

Supervisor or manager 36.8 40.4 47.2 36.9 43.2 35.6 29.6 41.2

Someone who reports to you 4.2 3.6 1.2 1.6 0.6 1.3 18.1 22.3

Other employee 37.0 42.6 34.4 50.2 40.9 59.3 16.2 24.7

Customer 13.8 11.2 14.5 9.5 13.0 0.9 32.6 9.2

Spouse or significant other 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.7

Other relative or friend 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1

Other non-employee 6.5 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.4 1.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q23 Q23 Was the person who did this male or female?

Male 68.2 73.3 81.0 68.5 63.0 77.5 73.6 76.5

Female 31.8 26.7 19.0 31.5 37.0 22.5 26.4 23.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q24 Q24 Did the person who did this appear to be on alcohol or drugs?

Yes 7.2 4.7 4.7 4.6 3.4 6.8 6.1 4.3

No 75.1 69.3 69.1 69.6 76.8 57.9 69.9 73.2

Don't know 17.8 25.9 26.2 25.8 19.9 35.3 24.1 22.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q25 Q25 Was the cause of this incident related to a...

Dispute about work 61.3 61.8 62.0 61.3 60.8 61.3 55.5 67.5

Personal relationship 6.5 6.8 6.7 7.2 6.7 10.0 3.5 3.0

Theft or robbery 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.3

Other 31.5 31.3 31.2 31.5 32.4 28.4 40.1 29.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q26 Q26 How upsetting was this incident?

Very upsetting 33.2 44.5 44.9 44.9 43.4 45.2 44.8 41.3

Somewhat upsetting 33.9 30.8 30.2 30.1 35.6 28.5 34.9 32.7

Only a little upsetting 23.5 18.0 18.9 17.9 16.1 18.7 15.4 17.9

Not upsetting at all 9.4 6.7 6.0 7.1 5.0 7.6 4.9 8.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q27 Q27 How many days, if any, did you take off as a result of this incident?

None 94.2 90.6 91.0 89.3 93.8 87.4 95.7 94.1

1 or 2 days 3.8 4.7 4.9 5.2 3.5 5.6 1.4 2.2

3 to 5 days 1.1 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.0 3.2 1.0 1.3

6 to 10 days 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.2

11 to 15 days 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2

16 or more days 0.6 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.1 1.4 2.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q28 Q28 Was there anyone else present when this incident occurred?

Yes 75.1 70.3 71.8 70.4 68.5 73.1 59.1 67.8

No 24.9 29.7 28.2 29.6 31.5 26.9 40.9 32.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q29 Whom did you tell about this incident?

(Mark all that apply.)

No one 24.6 25.1 24.5 23.0 27.0 20.3 23.9

Supervisor or manager 37.4 33.9 39.2 31.1 38.3 36.4 46.1

Inspection Service 4.0 3.3 3.5 2.2 3.2 10.8 9.6

EAP counselor 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 3.6 7.0 6.5

Union official 19.7 26.9 18.0 14.8 22.8 8.1 9.9

Management association official 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.7 6.6 7.0

Other employee 42.1 40.1 45.5 44.6 44.2 33.9 29.8

Friends or family 36.6 37.8 36.4 46.0 28.8 40.8 31.0

Local police 2.0 2.0 1.6 2.5 0.9 7.8 2.6

Other 3.8 3.7 4.0 1.9 4.1 5.0 4.7

Q29 Whom did you tell about this incident?

(Mark all that apply.)

No one 20.1

Supervisor or manager 41.1

Security personnel 2.6

Counselor or therapist 3.3

Union official 4.0

Other employee 42.3

Friend or family 39.6

Local police 2.1

Other 4.2

Q30 Q30 Was there an investigation of this incident?

Yes 15.1 13.6 13.9 12.8 9.0 14.6 17.5 18.7

No 80.1 76.8 76.7 77.1 79.9 74.7 77.4 74.6

Don't know 4.9 9.6 9.4 10.2 11.1 10.7 5.2 6.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q31 As a result of this incident, was the offender...

(Mark all that apply.)

Arrested 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.8

Other police or legal action 0.5 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.2 3.0 0.7

Fired from USPS 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 2.0 1.9

Other disciplinary action 5.0 4.1 4.8 3.0 4.7 7.1 11.0

Transferred 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.6 0.8 1.8 1.4

Sent to EAP 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.8 3.4 3.4

Promoted 2.1 3.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.7 2.7

Nothing happened 81.1 81.3 81.8 82.3 82.3 76.7 75.2

Don't know 11.4 11.4 11.7 12.2 12.9 8.4 8.1

Q31 As a result of this incident, was the offender...

(Mark all that apply.)

Arrested 1.2

Other police or legal action 1.0

Fired 2.3

Other disciplinary action 9.9

Transferred 1.6

Sent to counseling or therapy 2.0

Promoted 1.8

Nothing happened 77.1

Don't know 6.7

Q32 Q32 How satisfied were you about the way things worked out after this incident?

Very satisfied 14.0 6.8 6.6 6.0 7.5 6.4 10.9 10.2

Somewhat satisfied 12.7 8.4 8.3 7.7 8.4 8.3 11.4 10.8

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 40.6 43.1 41.7 43.9 48.7 40.6 43.0 40.3

Somewhat dissatisfied 13.2 12.3 12.1 12.2 12.8 12.6 13.0 12.0

Very dissatisfied 19.5 29.5 31.2 30.1 22.6 32.1 21.7 26.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q33 Since you have been working for the Postal Service, has anyone ever done any of the

following to you while you were working or at work?

Q33 Since you have been working for your primary employer, has anyone ever done any of the

following to you while you were working or at work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Thrown something at you that 

could hurt you 4.3 6.3 6.9 6.7 2.7 10.7 2.3 5.7

Pushed, grabbed, slapped, hit, 

kicked you, etc. 5.1 5.9 6.9 6.0 1.8 9.7 2.5 6.7

Hit you with an object 2.7 3.6 3.4 3.9 1.4 7.6 1.2 2.9

Beat you up 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3

Threatened you with a gun, knife 

or other weapon 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 0.8 3.0 2.1 4.2

Used a gun, knife or other weapon 

on you 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3

Raped you or attempted to rape 

you 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

None of these 87.3 87.9 86.9 87.4 95.0 80.5 94.4 86.9

Q34 Q34 Which of the following have EVER done any of these things to you while you were 

working or at work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Supervisor or manager 15.3 19.9 19.4 22.0 18.9 18.1 13.8 14.7

Someone who reports to you 4.3 4.7 0.5 2.1 4.7 2.8 29.6 33.2

Other employee 46.5 73.8 65.1 81.4 68.9 87.2 46.7 51.7

Customer 23.2 13.9 26.9 8.5 15.1 1.9 27.6 9.6

Spouse or significant other 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.8 1.9 2.5 3.9 3.1

Other relative or friend 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.2 2.0 0.7

Other non-employee 23.9 5.6 7.5 3.0 5.7 6.6 9.2 11.6

Q35 Q35 When did the most recent incident occur?

Within the last month 18.5 8.2 8.0 8.5 7.6 11.7 2.0 2.4

1 to 6 months ago 31.0 17.7 16.6 20.1 26.7 16.8 5.2 6.5

7 to 12 months ago 11.3 13.4 12.8 15.0 8.6 16.2 4.6 7.5

1 to 3 years ago 20.3 23.7 23.5 20.9 38.1 30.2 19.6 22.6

4 or more years ago 18.9 37.0 39.0 35.5 19.0 25.1 68.6 61.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q36 q36 What happened on that occasion?

(Mark all that apply.)

Thrown something at you that 

could hurt you 41.7 40.6 41.6 41.0 49.5 40.1 32.2 31.0

Pushed, grabbed, slapped, hit, 

kicked you, etc. 47.7 39.2 42.7 36.9 32.4 40.5 38.2 41.6

Hit you with an object 20.5 20.4 18.0 23.0 17.1 23.4 11.8 14.9

Beat you up 3.4 1.2 1.7 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.4

Threatened you with a gun, knife 

or other weapon 15.9 14.4 10.7 14.3 15.2 12.4 29.6 28.1

Used a gun, knife or other weapon 

on you 2.1 2.1 3.9 1.4 1.3 3.3 1.4

Raped you or attempted to rape 

you 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.5 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.1

Q37 Where did the most recent incident occur?

Customer lobby 4.0 1.1 6.8 0.6 15.2 4.2

Over the phone 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 4.0 1.7

Workroom floor 73.5 62.9 80.5 75.5 87.7 51.7 55.6

Break room or cafeteria 1.2 1.4 0.9 3.6 0.7 1.7

USPS parking lot 1.1 1.1 0.5 4.7 0.6 4.0 2.8

Other USPS premises 7.9 5.7 9.1 1.9 4.5 9.9 18.5

On a delivery route 9.3 26.9 0.5 14.2 4.6 6.3

Other non-USPS premises 2.4 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.6 9.9 9.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q38 Q37 Who did this to you the most recent time?

Supervisor or manager 12.2 14.8 16.9 14.3 16.3 12.7 9.6 13.5

Someone who reports to you 3.3 3.6 0.6 1.3 2.9 1.3 23.3 28.7

Other employee 38.9 66.7 55.1 76.7 63.5 82.3 34.9 39.0

Customer 21.0 10.6 21.9 5.4 13.5 0.3 22.6 7.8

Spouse or significant other 1.8 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.7 2.7 2.1

Other relative or friend 1.6 0.4 0.9

Other non-employee 21.2 3.3 5.6 0.9 2.9 2.7 6.8 8.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q39 Q38 Was the person who did this male or female?

Male 79.8 82.7 89.1 78.0 68.6 84.8 89.9 88.2

Female 20.2 17.3 10.9 22.0 31.4 15.2 10.1 11.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q40 Q39 Did the person who did this appear to be on alcohol or drugs?

Yes 14.6 9.2 9.8 6.9 5.8 13.0 15.9 15.2

No 64.0 56.1 58.2 56.3 68.3 47.6 55.0 53.4

Don't know 21.4 34.6 32.1 36.8 26.0 39.4 29.1 31.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q41 Q40 Was the cause of this incident related to a...

Dispute about work 28.5 37.4 33.3 35.7 35.3 43.1 55.6 50.5

Personal relationship 8.2 11.3 9.4 12.7 14.7 13.8 4.2 6.0

Theft or robbery 2.4 1.5 2.2 0.9 2.8 4.6

Other 61.0 49.9 55.0 50.7 50.0 43.1 37.5 38.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q42 Q41 How upsetting was this incident?

Very upsetting 28.4 47.8 48.1 47.4 45.7 43.2 63.4 54.3

Somewhat upsetting 26.0 25.7 26.2 26.1 25.7 27.6 20.3 19.6

Only a little upsetting 21.3 17.0 16.9 17.0 13.3 19.7 11.8 17.2

Not upsetting at all 24.3 9.4 8.7 9.6 15.2 9.5 4.6 8.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q43 Q42 How many days, if any, did you take off as a result of this incident?

None 88.9 87.5 89.7 86.6 93.4 82.8 91.4 87.3

1 or 2 days 5.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 2.8 9.4 4.6 6.2

3 to 5 days 2.9 2.7 1.6 3.5 2.8 3.4 1.3 1.4

6 to 10 days 1.6 0.2 1.2 0.7 0.7

11 to 15 days 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.3

16 or more days 1.6 2.4 2.2 2.6 0.9 2.2 2.0 4.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q44 Q43 Was there anyone else present when this incident occurred?

Yes 74.7 72.4 71.4 73.6 71.2 72.3 69.5 70.2

No 25.3 27.6 28.6 26.4 28.8 27.7 30.5 29.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q45 Whom did you tell about this incident?

(Mark all that apply.)

No one 27.3 29.3 26.5 30.8 30.9 17.1 17.9

Supervisor or manager 48.9 46.7 48.3 44.2 46.1 59.2 66.3

Inspection Service 11.6 10.9 8.7 10.6 6.6 41.4 32.6

EAP counselor 5.2 1.6 7.0 7.7 2.5 15.1 8.9

Union official 18.1 20.7 17.0 12.5 22.1 13.2 13.4

Management association official 3.1 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.5 11.8 9.3

Other employee 37.0 32.1 42.6 36.5 37.5 26.3 26.1

Friends or family 31.8 29.3 36.1 30.8 22.1 34.9 31.6

Local police 8.1 13.0 4.3 7.7 2.2 21.1 17.2

Other 4.2 4.3 3.5 3.8 4.7 2.6 8.2

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q44 Whom did you tell about this incident?

(Mark all that apply.)

No one 23.3

Supervisor or manager 52.4

Security personnel 7.6

Counselor or therapist 4.1

Union official 3.1

Other employee 36.4

Friend or family 27.2

Local police 10.1

Other 8.5

Q46 Q45 Was there an investigation of this incident?

Yes 27.7 24.2 24.5 20.5 24.3 18.4 49.7 47.9

No 67.4 64.6 64.1 68.1 69.9 67.4 43.8 43.8

Don't know 4.9 11.1 11.4 11.4 5.8 14.2 6.5 8.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q47 As a result of this incident, was the offender...

(Mark all that apply.)

Arrested 2.2 2.7 0.5 3.9 1.0 8.6 9.4

Other police or legal action 2.5 3.8 0.9 2.9 0.3 9.2 8.4

Fired from USPS 1.5 0.9 1.9 2.3 6.6 8.4

Other disciplinary action 7.2 5.5 6.8 5.8 4.5 19.1 17.8

Transferred 1.8 3.8 0.5 2.3 0.7 1.7

Sent to EAP 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.3 4.6 3.8

Promoted 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.9 1.0 2.6 0.7

Nothing happened 75.8 75.3 80.0 76.7 79.2 55.9 52.3

Don't know 12.4 13.7 12.3 8.7 14.3 7.9 7.7

Q46 As a result of this incident, was the offender...

(Mark all that apply.)

Arrested 8.1

Other police or legal action 5.7

Fired 1.7

Other disciplinary action 16.0

Transferred 3.8

Sent to counseling or therapy 4.1

Promoted 2.1

Nothing happened 61.7

Don't know 5.3

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q48 Q47 How satisfied were you about the way things worked out after this incident?

Very satisfied 25.1 7.4 7.2 5.0 10.6 8.0 14.4 16.7

Somewhat satisfied 13.2 8.7 8.8 8.2 6.7 8.0 11.8 13.2

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 33.2 34.3 36.5 35.9 31.7 31.8 25.5 24.0

Somewhat dissatisfied 10.8 13.4 13.8 12.3 20.2 14.5 9.2 13.2

Very dissatisfied 17.8 36.2 33.7 38.6 30.8 37.6 39.2 33.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q49 Q48 Were you injured as a result of this incident?

Yes 11.4 10.3 11.2 8.3 10.2 12.4 7.0 16.6

No 88.6 89.7 88.8 91.7 89.8 87.6 93.0 83.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q50 Q49 Were you hospitalized as a result of this incident?

Yes 14.0 2.1 2.9 2.3 4.7

No 86.0 97.9 100.0 97.1 100.0 97.7 100.0 95.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q51 Since you have been working for the Postal Service, has anyone ever done any of the following

to you while you were working or at work?

Q50 Since you have been working for your primary employer, has anyone ever done any of the following

to you while you were working or at work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Told you about their sexual 

attributes or behavior 17.2 18.3 18.3 21.1 7.0 24.6 8.3 21.7

Said things to you about your body 12.6 17.2 16.8 20.1 6.8 23.0 8.7 19.6

Made repeated unwanted requests 

for you to go out with them 

"socially" or on dates 4.3 6.5 3.6 8.9 2.2 9.9 3.3 8.8

Touched you in a sexual way when 

you did not encourage them 2.7 4.9 3.8 6.3 1.8 7.8 2.6 5.2

Tried to kiss or fondle you when 

you did not encourage them 2.1 3.4 2.6 3.9 1.8 5.6 2.3 5.1

Promised to help you on the job if 

you were nice to him or her 1.1 1.9 1.6 2.4 0.2 2.6 1.3 2.6

Promised to make trouble for you if 

you were not nice to him or her 1.1 1.8 1.2 2.4 0.7 2.3 1.3 2.3

None of these 75.2 75.9 77.2 71.7 89.1 69.0 87.0 72.2

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q52 Q51 Which of the following have EVER done any of these things to you while you were 

working or at work?

(Mark all that apply.)

Supervisor or manager 21.7 32.3 27.4 34.0 25.2 33.0 35.4 40.7

Someone who reports to you 6.9 6.3 5.0 3.8 3.7 4.4 19.2 26.4

Other employee 79.4 84.6 87.0 85.8 79.4 90.3 55.8 75.3

Customer 16.4 11.3 20.4 7.9 17.9 1.1 26.5 5.8

Spouse or significant other 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.4 2.2 2.4 2.5

Other relative or friend 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4

Other non-employee 9.8 2.6 4.0 1.9 2.3 3.3 3.2 2.2

Q53 Q52 When did the most recent incident occur?

Within the last month 34.3 23.1 25.4 24.0 22.5 26.0 6.8 11.6

1 to 6 months ago 34.7 24.8 29.2 22.8 33.0 26.4 15.9 18.7

7 to 12 months ago 11.4 11.6 13.6 9.8 12.4 16.3 5.9 11.5

1 to 3 years ago 10.7 18.1 16.6 18.0 17.4 19.0 16.8 22.9

4 or more years ago 8.9 22.5 15.3 25.5 14.7 12.3 54.6 35.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q54 Q53 What happened on that occasion?

(Mark all that apply.)

Told you about their sexual 

attributes or behavior 66.9 58.8 62.6 56.4 54.2 64.5 52.5 59.1

Said things to you about your body 47.4 55.7 58.8 53.8 50.9 61.0 53.4 54.5

Made repeated unwanted requests 

for you to go out with them 

"socially" or on dates 16.6 18.5 12.5 20.1 14.0 24.8 18.0 23.9

Touched you in a sexual way when 

you did not encourage them 10.0 13.1 10.7 13.5 13.1 18.0 15.0 12.3

Tried to kiss or fondle you when 

you did not encourage them 8.0 9.1 6.6 8.5 14.0 11.2 14.2 12.6

Promised to help you on the job if 

you were nice to him or her 3.9 5.3 4.5 5.8 0.9 5.7 7.7 6.6

Promised to make trouble for you if 

you were not nice to him or her 4.2 5.6 4.8 5.8 5.1 5.9 9.4 6.0

Q55 Q54 Who did this to you the most recent time?

Supervisor or manager 13.4 18.7 16.5 20.2 14.9 14.2 22.5 23.3

Someone who reports to you 5.0 2.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.7 10.3 17.4

Other employee 67.0 73.2 71.6 76.1 72.1 83.7 45.6 57.3

Customer 7.9 3.9 7.9 1.3 11.1 0.5 20.1 0.4

Spouse or significant other 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.4

Other relative or friend 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6

Other non-employee 5.1 0.9 1.8 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q56 Q55 Was the person who did this male or female?

Male 70.4 72.5 75.0 72.7 80.8 63.0 77.5 66.9

Female 29.6 27.5 25.0 27.3 19.2 37.0 22.5 33.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q57 Q56 Did you consider this to be sexual harassment?

Yes 26.9 42.6 36.1 45.0 44.2 42.2 48.5 46.1

No 73.1 57.4 63.9 55.0 55.8 57.8 51.5 53.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q58 Q57 Were you told or did you think that if you complained or didn't go along that it would

hurt you with respect to hiring, firing, promotions, pay or career opportunities?

Told only 1.5 1.5 0.3 1.7 1.9 3.8 1.8 1.5

Thought only 11.9 14.5 13.2 14.2 17.2 15.1 17.0 16.7

Both 4.0 4.8 5.4 4.0 5.6 4.9 9.3 5.6

Neither told nor thought 82.6 79.2 81.0 80.1 75.3 76.2 71.9 76.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q59 Q58 To what extent did the unwanted sexual advances or comments interfere with your 

ability to do your job?

A great deal 2.9 5.6 4.4 5.5 7.4 6.0 7.9 7.3

A fair amount 7.9 10.1 6.5 11.6 12.0 11.9 9.4 8.8

A little bit 19.5 23.7 26.3 23.5 22.1 21.0 26.7 20.6

Not at all 69.7 60.6 62.8 59.4 58.5 61.1 56.0 63.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q60 Where did the most recent incident occur?

Customer lobby 1.4 0.7 1.5 17.6 0.5

Over the phone 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 3.4 3.2

Workroom floor 75.6 75.3 77.2 77.3 89.3 57.9 56.2

Break room or cafeteria 5.7 4.0 7.7 1.9 4.3 1.5 4.6

USPS parking lot 2.2 4.0 1.8 2.4 1.0 1.5 1.1

Other USPS premises 8.1 4.0 7.7 4.7 3.6 12.1 29.9

On a delivery route 3.7 9.8 0.9 11.8 0.2 1.5 0.9

Other non-USPS premises 2.4 2.2 2.6 0.9 1.2 4.3 3.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q61 Q59 Did the person who did this appear to be on alcohol or drugs?

Yes 5.5 3.7 2.0 4.4 5.1 3.6 4.7 3.2

No 82.8 77.5 79.6 75.9 80.6 69.5 85.5 84.8

Don't know 11.7 18.9 18.4 19.7 14.4 26.9 9.7 12.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q62 Q60 How upsetting was this incident?

Very upsetting 8.2 13.7 10.8 14.9 13.9 13.2 16.6 14.4

Somewhat upsetting 12.4 19.4 15.9 21.0 22.7 20.6 22.2 16.4

Only a little upsetting 24.5 25.5 27.5 24.4 29.2 23.1 29.0 25.1

Not upsetting at all 54.9 41.5 45.8 39.7 34.3 43.0 32.2 44.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q63 Q61 How many days, if any, did you take off as a result of this incident?

None 97.1 95.9 98.0 94.7 98.1 94.8 95.9 96.6

1 or 2 days 0.8 2.0 1.4 2.5 1.9 2.2 1.5 1.2

3 to 5 days 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.8

6 to 10 days 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2

11 to 15 days 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3

16 or more days 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.8 0.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q64 Q62 Was there anyone else present when this incident occurred?

Yes 55.3 45.6 47.6 46.5 53.0 44.9 30.5 34.1

No 44.7 54.4 52.4 53.5 47.0 55.1 69.5 65.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q63 Whom did you tell about this incident?

(Mark all that apply.)

No one 52.2

Supervisor or manager 14.3

Security personnel 1.8

Counselor or therapist 2.1

Union official 0.9

Other employee 28.9

Friend or family 23.0

Local police 1.1

Other 3.3

Q65 Whom did you tell about this incident?

(Mark all that apply.)

No one 54.9 61.0 52.2 50.9 51.8 48.4 59.8

Supervisor or manager 12.8 9.8 13.0 16.7 14.3 15.9 16.3

Inspection Service 1.5 0.7 1.9 0.9 1.1 3.2 1.7

EAP counselor 1.4 0.3 2.1 1.9 0.7 3.5 1.0

Union official 4.9 5.4 5.2 4.6 5.6 2.7 1.5

Management association official 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.9 1.5 2.5

Other employee 28.7 21.4 33.1 30.1 33.3 24.8 19.5

Friends or family 24.0 22.0 25.4 32.4 21.4 32.2 17.5

Local police 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.7

Other 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.3 3.8 2.1 3.4

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q66 Q64 Was there an investigation of this incident?

Yes 6.5 4.8 3.4 4.8 6.0 5.1 10.6 6.6

No 90.2 91.3 92.5 91.4 88.9 90.2 87.3 90.5

Don't know 3.3 3.9 4.1 3.8 5.1 4.7 2.1 2.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q67 As a result of this incident, was the offender...

(Mark all that apply.)

Arrested 0.1 0.3 0.3

Other police or legal action 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.3

Fired from USPS 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.7

Other disciplinary action 2.6 1.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 4.0 4.0

Transferred 1.1 0.7 1.3 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.4

Sent to EAP 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.5

Promoted 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.1 2.5 1.4

Nothing happened 88.9 92.4 87.7 86.7 88.3 88.0 88.2

Don't know 7.3 6.9 7.8 8.6 7.1 4.3 5.4

Q65 As a result of this incident, was the offender...

(Mark all that apply.)

Arrested 0.4

Other police or legal action 0.2

Fired 1.5

Other disciplinary action 4.2

Transferred 2.0

Sent to counseling or therapy 1.9

Promoted 3.5

Nothing happened 85.6

Don't know 2.9

Q68 Q66 How satisfied were you about the way things worked out after this incident?

Very satisfied 22.4 12.6 11.4 12.0 14.0 12.6 16.0 17.8

Somewhat satisfied 8.1 5.2 4.8 5.5 3.4 6.3 4.9 5.2

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 54.3 60.8 61.0 62.0 59.9 57.9 61.0 56.0

Somewhat dissatisfied 6.3 7.5 7.9 7.0 9.7 8.1 8.0 7.0

Very dissatisfied 8.9 13.9 14.8 13.5 13.0 15.1 10.1 14.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* Age from administrative data.

Q67 How old are you?

Under 25 10.2 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.9 1.9 0.8 0.1

25 to 34 23.6 13.0 15.4 12.9 14.3 15.5 5.0 4.8

35 to 44 30.1 32.0 34.1 32.3 32.0 31.3 24.2 27.5

45 to 54 24.1 38.3 37.3 38.3 32.7 35.8 42.5 51.9

55 to 64 10.3 12.7 9.6 12.5 15.5 13.8 21.3 14.7

65 or older 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.7 2.5 1.6 6.2 1.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

* Race/Hispanic origin from administrative data.

White non-Hispanic 68.3 68.2 61.9 94.7 47.1 92.5 69.1

Black non-Hispanic 17.3 13.8 21.1 2.4 37.4 3.2 21.0

Asian or Pacific Islander 6.9 7.1 9.6 0.9 7.8 0.3 3.4

American Indian or Alaska Native 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.4 0.5

Hispanic 6.9 10.3 6.8 1.4 7.4 2.0 5.9

Other 0.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q68 Are you of Hispanic origin or descent?

Yes 6.5

No 93.5

TOTAL 100.0

Q69 Which of the following best describes your racial background?

White 87.0

Black or African-American 8.6

Asian or Pacific Islander 2.0

American Indian or Alaska Native 1.2

Other 1.2

TOTAL 100.0

Q69 Q70 What is your current marital status?

Never been married 21.9 12.8 12.7 14.4 8.2 22.3 3.2 7.6

Married 59.0 67.5 69.6 62.7 77.1 56.4 82.3 72.8

Separated 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.9 3.8 1.2 3.1

Divorced 14.6 15.5 14.2 18.5 11.0 15.8 9.0 14.5

Widowed 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 4.3 1.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q70 Q71 What is the highest level of education you completed?

Less than high school graduate 4.7 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.7 0.3

High school graduate or GED 27.1 27.9 28.1 26.5 38.6 27.4 35.9 12.1

Some college 30.9 49.5 52.0 49.9 42.7 52.3 43.2 50.3

College graduate 22.9 18.0 16.6 19.3 14.1 15.5 15.2 26.3

Graduate work 14.4 3.3 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.6 4.0 11.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q71 How much do you socialize outside of the workplace with other people who work for USPS?

Q72 How much do you socialize outside of the workplace with other people who work for

your primary employer?

Very often 6.7 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.1 4.3 4.7 3.2

Often 11.6 8.5 10.6 7.1 9.9 6.7 9.9 7.4

Sometimes 34.0 32.4 35.0 32.0 32.9 27.1 32.4 29.0

Rarely 34.9 40.0 37.2 39.9 39.9 42.4 39.8 49.2

Never 12.8 14.5 12.3 16.1 13.3 19.4 13.2 11.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q72 How many of your friends or relatives would you say are people who work for USPS?

Q73 How many of your friends or relatives would you say are people who work for 

 your primary employer?

(Friends)

Most 7.3 3.3 2.9 4.2 1.6 3.6 1.7 3.5

About half 6.6 5.0 6.8 4.8 3.2 3.1 5.1 4.7

Some 19.7 23.2 23.5 23.5 24.0 19.1 24.7 21.9

Few 38.0 49.6 47.9 48.8 52.8 49.3 53.0 53.5

None 28.4 18.8 18.9 18.6 18.4 24.9 15.4 16.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q72 How many of your friends or relatives would you say are people who work for USPS?

Q73 How many of your friends or relatives would you say are people who work for 

 your primary employer?

(Relatives)

Most 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.5

About half 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8

Some 3.3 6.6 6.1 7.3 6.3 5.6 5.8 7.0

Few 14.8 32.6 30.3 33.4 32.4 32.7 32.0 37.2

None 79.8 59.7 62.4 58.1 60.6 60.6 61.5 54.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q73 Q74 Have you ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces?

Yes 15.8 35.1 42.3 32.2 20.0 52.4 19.3 40.8

No 84.2 64.9 57.7 67.8 80.0 47.6 80.7 59.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

a a Once in a while I can't control the urge to strike another person.

Strongly agree 2.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.7

Somewhat agree 2.7 1.6 2.0 1.6 0.5 3.0 0.6 1.0

Neither 7.1 7.4 8.7 7.7 5.7 9.3 4.8 3.1

Somewhat disagree 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.3 3.7 7.6 3.2 3.1

Strongly disagree 82.7 84.4 82.4 83.3 89.9 78.2 91.1 92.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

b b Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.

Strongly agree 4.4 2.5 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.5 1.0 1.5

Somewhat agree 15.3 10.5 12.8 9.9 8.4 13.9 4.9 7.9

Neither 8.2 9.3 10.7 9.3 8.2 10.6 6.8 5.5

Somewhat disagree 14.6 12.8 14.8 12.5 11.1 13.4 9.7 11.0

Strongly disagree 57.5 64.9 57.7 66.3 71.3 57.6 77.6 74.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

c c If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.

Strongly agree 10.3 6.0 8.0 5.6 2.9 8.7 3.2 5.1

Somewhat agree 19.1 13.7 15.7 13.8 10.4 16.7 9.3 11.6

Neither 10.9 12.3 13.2 12.4 10.8 14.7 9.8 10.1

Somewhat disagree 16.4 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.9 13.4 12.8 15.6

Strongly disagree 43.2 53.2 48.4 53.4 61.0 46.4 64.9 57.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

d d There are people who have pushed me so far that we came to blows.

Strongly agree 3.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.0 2.3 0.9 1.5

Somewhat agree 5.9 4.0 4.7 4.0 2.2 6.2 1.7 2.5

Neither 8.8 9.5 10.9 9.7 7.6 12.6 6.5 4.5

Somewhat disagree 7.7 7.0 7.3 8.0 5.1 7.6 3.7 4.6

Strongly disagree 74.1 78.0 75.3 76.7 84.1 71.3 87.2 86.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

e e I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.

Strongly agree 29.9 35.0 31.0 34.5 40.8 29.8 48.2 41.1

Somewhat agree 19.5 17.8 17.7 17.4 18.8 18.1 16.2 19.5

Neither 11.1 12.4 13.6 12.8 10.6 14.1 8.9 8.9

Somewhat disagree 22.5 19.2 20.7 19.0 17.3 19.9 15.1 18.9

Strongly disagree 17.0 15.6 17.0 16.2 12.6 17.9 11.7 11.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

f f I tell friends openly when I disagree with them.

Strongly agree 32.0 27.9 28.8 28.0 21.8 37.0 21.7 29.2

Somewhat agree 49.7 49.5 48.9 49.3 53.4 41.1 52.9 52.7

Neither 7.0 10.4 10.6 10.7 11.1 9.3 10.0 8.2

Somewhat disagree 9.2 9.1 8.6 8.9 11.2 8.2 11.2 7.8

Strongly disagree 2.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.4 4.4 4.2 2.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

g g I often find myself disagreeing with people.

Strongly agree 2.9 2.4 3.1 2.5 0.8 4.0 0.6 1.0

Somewhat agree 17.7 13.9 16.4 13.6 10.6 15.9 9.1 12.8

Neither 21.6 22.9 24.0 22.9 21.7 23.3 17.2 23.4

Somewhat disagree 37.2 36.4 33.9 38.0 37.5 32.4 37.3 39.4

Strongly disagree 20.5 24.3 22.6 22.9 29.4 24.4 35.9 23.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

h h When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.

Strongly agree 6.6 4.6 6.1 4.5 1.5 8.6 1.6 2.6

Somewhat agree 28.8 24.5 27.6 24.1 19.6 30.7 14.3 22.0

Neither 15.5 18.1 19.8 17.5 17.3 18.3 15.4 17.6

Somewhat disagree 28.4 28.2 26.4 29.2 30.5 21.1 29.0 32.4

Strongly disagree 20.6 24.6 20.1 24.6 31.0 21.3 39.8 25.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

i i My friends say that I'm somewhat argumentative.

Strongly agree 3.3 1.4 1.6 1.3 0.9 2.4 0.7 1.0

Somewhat agree 13.3 9.0 10.1 9.2 6.6 9.6 5.2 9.9

Neither 14.8 16.5 17.7 16.4 15.7 18.4 11.7 14.2

Somewhat disagree 20.8 21.2 22.7 20.8 19.9 20.4 17.1 23.7

Strongly disagree 47.7 51.9 47.9 52.3 56.9 49.2 65.3 51.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

j j I flare up quickly but get over it quickly.

Strongly agree 6.4 3.7 4.7 3.7 1.7 5.4 1.5 2.6

Somewhat agree 18.5 14.5 15.5 15.0 11.5 15.9 10.1 13.8

Neither 15.7 18.4 19.9 18.4 17.2 19.4 14.7 15.7

Somewhat disagree 21.5 20.0 22.0 19.1 20.5 18.2 19.6 19.8

Strongly disagree 38.0 43.4 37.9 43.9 49.1 41.2 54.1 48.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

k k I am an even-tempered person.

Strongly agree 33.3 37.6 35.9 36.6 40.8 35.2 45.1 42.0

Somewhat agree 35.4 37.4 35.6 38.0 41.0 34.5 37.9 37.0

Neither 11.5 13.1 15.4 12.8 10.5 14.4 8.9 10.8

Somewhat disagree 12.3 7.3 7.9 7.8 5.3 7.4 4.8 7.5

Strongly disagree 7.4 4.7 5.3 4.7 2.3 8.4 3.3 2.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q74 Q75 The following statements refer to your thoughts and behaviors. Please indicate whether

you agree with each statement.

l l Some of my friends think I am a hothead.

Strongly agree 1.7 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.4

Somewhat agree 5.5 3.7 4.7 3.8 2.3 4.2 1.2 2.9

Neither 9.5 11.0 11.3 11.7 9.6 14.0 7.9 7.5

Somewhat disagree 14.9 13.0 15.6 12.0 11.5 12.8 9.5 13.1

Strongly disagree 68.3 71.5 67.8 71.6 76.3 67.7 81.0 76.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

a a Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason.

Strongly agree 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3

Somewhat agree 6.5 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.3

Neither 7.5 7.4 8.0 7.9 5.5 9.6 5.4 4.0

Somewhat disagree 16.0 12.4 13.7 12.1 12.8 12.0 10.1 11.0

Strongly disagree 68.8 76.8 74.2 76.5 79.3 75.4 82.1 82.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

b b I have trouble controlling my temper.

Strongly agree 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.5

Somewhat agree 5.5 2.9 4.1 2.7 1.3 3.5 1.5 1.8

Neither 6.5 6.4 7.3 6.8 5.2 7.1 4.4 3.9

Somewhat disagree 18.7 13.6 15.2 13.6 12.4 12.9 10.3 12.3

Strongly disagree 68.6 76.5 72.7 76.4 81.0 75.6 83.5 81.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

c c At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.

Strongly agree 4.9 3.2 3.3 3.5 1.9 4.6 1.7 2.5

Somewhat agree 18.7 14.1 13.0 15.9 11.7 14.0 11.0 14.2

Neither 12.2 13.2 14.4 13.3 11.7 14.7 9.2 11.2

Somewhat disagree 16.6 15.0 15.7 14.4 16.3 13.5 14.8 15.9

Strongly disagree 47.6 54.5 53.5 52.9 58.3 53.2 63.2 56.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

d d Other people always seem to get the breaks.

Strongly agree 4.3 3.4 2.9 4.2 1.1 5.9 1.4 2.9

Somewhat agree 16.1 16.0 17.9 16.9 10.8 16.4 10.5 14.6

Neither 16.7 18.6 19.6 19.1 17.0 20.3 13.6 15.5

Somewhat disagree 20.0 19.2 20.0 18.5 20.1 17.9 17.8 20.7

Strongly disagree 42.9 42.9 39.5 41.4 51.0 39.5 56.6 46.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

e e I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.

Strongly agree 2.8 1.5 1.2 1.9 0.7 2.2 0.4 1.3

Somewhat agree 13.0 8.9 10.1 9.6 6.1 9.2 6.2 6.3

Neither 13.9 15.5 16.9 15.9 12.5 18.0 11.4 12.2

Somewhat disagree 17.1 15.3 16.2 15.3 15.1 14.6 11.7 14.7

Strongly disagree 53.3 58.9 55.6 57.3 65.6 56.0 70.3 65.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

f f I sometimes feel that people are laughing behind my back.

Strongly agree 2.4 1.9 1.5 2.5 0.8 3.2 0.5 1.0

Somewhat agree 10.6 8.7 8.6 10.0 7.4 8.4 6.1 6.2

Neither 12.6 14.3 15.0 15.1 12.2 16.4 9.6 11.2

Somewhat disagree 16.4 14.4 15.1 14.1 14.5 13.9 13.1 14.9

Strongly disagree 57.9 60.7 59.8 58.3 65.1 58.0 70.7 66.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q75 Q76 Please indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements.

g g When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want.

Strongly agree 5.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 2.1 6.1 1.7 2.1

Somewhat agree 19.4 18.6 19.6 19.0 15.6 20.8 14.0 17.9

Neither 13.5 15.3 16.1 15.2 14.4 17.3 12.2 14.2

Somewhat disagree 21.0 18.8 18.4 19.1 19.6 15.8 17.6 20.5

Strongly disagree 41.0 43.6 41.8 42.7 48.3 40.0 54.5 45.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q76 Q77 During the average week would you say that you experience...

A lot of stress 20.4 16.8 20.0 16.1 8.9 14.3 14.1 26.4

A moderate amount of stress 51.2 44.2 46.4 41.7 48.0 37.9 42.4 52.1

Relatively little stress 21.0 27.6 24.2 29.4 32.8 30.4 30.4 16.7

Almost no stress 7.4 11.3 9.4 12.8 10.3 17.3 13.1 4.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q77 Q78 In total, how many days last year were you unable to perform your daily routine because of

health problems you feel were caused by stress rather than physical illness?

None 69.0 70.9 69.6 65.7 86.6 63.2 87.5 77.9

5 days or less 23.6 18.5 21.2 20.8 10.7 19.1 8.2 13.2

6 to 10 days 4.2 5.3 4.7 7.0 1.3 8.1 2.3 3.9

11 to 25 days 1.7 2.8 2.5 3.5 0.5 5.4 1.2 2.5

26 to 50 days 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.5 2.7 0.5 1.3

51 to 100 days 0.2 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.5

101 days or more 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q78 Q79 In the past year, have you had a period of two weeks or longer when you were...

Feeling depressed or down most 

of the day or nearly every day 7.8 5.3 4.3 6.4 4.0 5.5 3.6 6.2

Uninterested in most things or 

unable to enjoy things you used to 6.5 5.1 5.0 5.5 3.3 6.6 3.8 5.7

Both 12.9 9.9 9.8 11.4 5.2 10.7 7.1 11.1

Neither 72.8 79.7 80.9 76.7 87.5 77.2 85.5 77.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q79 Q80 During the time that you felt down or depressed, or when you were unable to enjoy things,

did you have any of the following symptoms?

(Mark all that apply.)

Lost or gained weight without 

dieting 40.7 41.3 40.8 42.6 30.4 43.1 37.6 45.2

Slept too much, too little, or less 

than normal 73.0 69.4 61.9 72.9 63.0 73.2 69.4 74.8

Were so fidgety or restless that 

you were unable to sit still 18.7 16.6 15.6 16.8 13.5 17.5 23.5 17.9

Felt tired or low in energy all of the 

time 78.9 73.1 72.3 72.9 79.6 66.5 80.2 76.1

Felt worthless or guilty about the 

past 37.0 27.1 26.3 28.3 25.6 23.7 29.6 27.2

Had a hard time thinking, 

concentrating or making decisions 51.8 48.4 46.0 50.0 43.3 41.9 55.3 56.1

Felt things were so bad that you 

thought about hurting yourself 14.4 11.1 14.5 10.5 6.9 9.1 8.7 10.6

Felt hopeless about the future 35.9 30.3 30.8 31.2 25.3 28.2 29.6 30.3

None of these 4.3 9.5 10.0 9.4 8.3 12.9 6.8 6.0

Q80 Q81 In the past month, how often have each of the following happened to you -- never,

almost never, sometimes, fairly often or very often?

a a You felt you were unable to control the important things in your life.

Never 33.4 41.9 41.7 41.5 43.7 45.3 42.3 38.5

Almost never 28.1 26.5 26.3 24.4 31.6 24.0 30.2 31.1

Sometimes 28.5 24.7 25.2 26.6 19.8 23.6 21.4 23.0

Fairly often 6.0 4.4 4.3 4.7 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.8

Very often 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.7 1.3 3.2 2.1 2.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q80 Q81 In the past month, how often have each of the following happened to you -- never,

almost never, sometimes, fairly often or very often?

b b You felt confident in your ability to handle your personal problems.

Never 2.5 2.9 3.4 2.6 2.1 5.2 2.5 1.9

Almost never 4.7 3.2 2.6 3.9 2.0 4.2 3.3 2.6

Sometimes 15.1 13.5 14.0 15.2 9.1 14.3 9.7 11.0

Fairly often 32.8 27.8 27.4 28.0 29.0 25.8 27.7 28.8

Very often 44.9 52.5 52.6 50.3 57.8 50.5 56.7 55.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q80 Q81 In the past month, how often have each of the following happened to you -- never,

almost never, sometimes, fairly often or very often?

c c You felt things were going your way.

Never 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.4 0.9 4.8 1.5 1.7

Almost never 6.0 5.7 4.7 6.8 3.7 5.9 4.6 6.3

Sometimes 35.6 34.3 36.3 35.4 29.2 37.1 25.8 31.6

Fairly often 37.8 38.0 38.8 35.8 43.6 31.9 44.3 40.6

Very often 18.0 19.6 17.3 19.6 22.6 20.3 23.7 19.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q80 Q81 In the past month, how often have each of the following happened to you -- never,

almost never, sometimes, fairly often or very often?

d d You've felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them.

Never 31.4 42.0 42.7 40.0 47.7 42.2 44.6 38.9

Almost never 32.5 29.7 30.4 27.8 31.7 29.4 32.5 33.3

Sometimes 25.7 21.4 20.7 24.0 16.6 20.6 17.5 21.2

Fairly often 6.6 4.6 4.4 5.5 2.8 4.1 3.5 4.1

Very often 3.8 2.3 1.7 2.7 1.3 3.7 2.0 2.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

a a Have you been feeling unhappy or depressed?

Not at all 31.4 35.3 34.2 33.1 42.3 38.6 40.1 33.7

Not more than usual 51.7 49.9 51.3 50.0 49.7 47.5 48.4 47.9

More than usual 13.8 11.7 11.3 13.6 6.2 10.7 9.0 14.4

Much more than usual 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 1.8 3.3 2.5 4.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

b b Over the past few weeks, have you been feeling nervous and strung-up all the time?

Not at all 51.7 60.4 59.3 59.5 66.2 65.1 59.7 55.5

Not more than usual 34.7 29.3 30.4 29.2 28.2 25.7 31.7 30.0

More than usual 11.0 8.4 8.4 9.3 4.8 6.7 6.8 11.7

Much more than usual 2.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 0.8 2.5 1.7 2.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

c c Have you found everything getting too much for you?

Not at all 48.3 57.3 56.5 55.6 65.1 60.6 56.8 53.2

Not more than usual 38.4 32.2 33.2 32.2 29.5 30.6 34.1 33.2

More than usual 10.3 8.6 8.1 10.3 4.6 6.2 7.5 10.7

Much more than usual 3.0 2.0 2.2 1.9 0.8 2.6 1.6 2.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

d d Have you been taking things hard?

Not at all 52.7 58.1 57.0 56.2 66.6 60.7 59.4 55.1

Not more than usual 34.6 32.8 33.4 33.7 29.3 30.5 33.1 33.6

More than usual 9.9 7.3 7.4 8.4 3.1 6.5 6.1 8.7

Much more than usual 2.8 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.0 2.2 1.4 2.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

e e Over the past few weeks, have you been losing confidence in yourself?

Not at all 65.7 71.2 70.5 69.3 77.4 75.1 70.9 69.9

Not more than usual 24.5 21.6 22.3 22.5 19.4 18.5 22.7 19.8

More than usual 7.5 5.5 5.8 5.8 2.6 5.0 5.1 8.5

Much more than usual 2.3 1.8 1.4 2.4 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

f f Have you felt constantly under strain?

Not at all 37.8 44.4 42.4 44.3 49.6 50.9 44.8 36.4

Not more than usual 41.9 38.6 39.2 37.7 40.8 35.0 40.7 40.5

More than usual 15.2 12.8 14.1 13.6 7.6 10.3 10.5 16.2

Much more than usual 5.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 2.0 3.8 3.9 6.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

g g Have you been losing sleep because of worry?

Not at all 54.8 60.2 60.5 58.3 66.7 63.2 61.6 54.5

Not more than usual 30.9 27.5 27.2 28.3 26.3 25.8 28.3 27.7

More than usual 10.4 9.0 8.5 10.2 5.3 7.1 7.7 12.9

Much more than usual 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.2 1.8 3.9 2.4 4.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

h h Over the past few weeks, have you felt that life is entirely hopeless?

Not at all 82.7 84.8 84.8 82.7 90.8 83.4 88.6 86.4

Not more than usual 12.3 11.1 11.1 12.5 7.7 11.8 8.6 9.4

More than usual 3.6 2.8 2.8 3.2 1.0 2.9 2.1 3.0

Much more than usual 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.6 1.8 0.8 1.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

i i Over the past few weeks, have you felt you couldn't overcome your difficulties?

Not at all 71.7 75.5 74.7 73.5 81.0 76.7 80.3 76.6

Not more than usual 21.3 18.6 19.3 19.6 16.0 17.0 15.9 17.3

More than usual 5.0 4.1 3.8 4.9 2.0 4.5 3.1 4.5

Much more than usual 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 0.9 1.9 0.7 1.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q81 Q82 Please indicate how often each of the following has occurred recently.

j j Have you been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?

Not at all 84.5 87.6 88.1 85.6 91.2 88.3 89.1 89.4

Not more than usual 11.0 8.7 8.3 9.9 7.1 7.8 8.5 7.0

More than usual 3.1 2.5 2.4 3.1 1.2 2.4 1.8 2.5

Much more than usual 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.5 1.5 0.6 1.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q82 Q83 How fearful are you of being robbed or attacked in each of the following locations -- would

you say you are very fearful, somewhat fearful, only a little fearful, or not fearful at all?

a a In your home or apartment.

Very fearful 1.6 1.5 1.3 2.0 0.6 2.8 0.3 0.6

Somewhat fearful 5.1 5.9 5.4 7.6 3.4 5.9 2.9 3.7

Only a little fearful 27.4 25.6 25.8 26.5 25.1 23.2 23.3 23.8

Not fearful at all 65.9 67.0 67.5 63.8 71.0 68.1 73.4 71.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q82 Q83 How fearful are you of being robbed or attacked in each of the following locations -- would

you say you are very fearful, somewhat fearful, only a little fearful, or not fearful at all?

b b On the streets of your community during the day.

Very fearful 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.2 0.6

Somewhat fearful 5.1 5.7 7.2 6.6 1.8 6.3 1.4 3.6

Only a little fearful 21.5 23.0 25.2 24.1 18.4 23.8 13.5 21.3

Not fearful at all 72.1 69.7 66.2 67.2 79.4 67.6 84.8 74.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q82 Q83 How fearful are you of being robbed or attacked in each of the following locations -- would

you say you are very fearful, somewhat fearful, only a little fearful, or not fearful at all?

c c Out at night in your neighborhood.

Very fearful 2.6 2.8 2.4 4.0 1.1 4.0 0.6 1.0

Somewhat fearful 10.9 10.0 9.2 12.7 5.6 11.6 4.5 7.6

Only a little fearful 31.3 33.8 34.3 35.2 30.6 32.5 28.5 33.8

Not fearful at all 55.2 53.3 54.1 48.2 62.7 51.9 66.4 57.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q82 Q83 How fearful are you of being robbed or attacked in each of the following locations -- would

you say you are very fearful, somewhat fearful, only a little fearful, or not fearful at all?

d d When traveling on vacation or for business.

Very fearful 3.3 2.7 1.8 4.1 1.3 3.2 1.6 1.2

Somewhat fearful 17.6 18.7 18.4 18.9 20.5 16.8 21.3 15.9

Only a little fearful 43.6 44.2 45.7 42.1 47.8 37.4 48.9 48.4

Not fearful at all 35.6 34.4 34.1 34.9 30.3 42.6 28.2 34.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q82 Q83 How fearful are you of being robbed or attacked in each of the following locations -- would

you say you are very fearful, somewhat fearful, only a little fearful, or not fearful at all?

e e At work.

Very fearful 1.7 2.7 3.3 3.2 0.7 3.7 1.2 1.5

Somewhat fearful 6.2 10.0 13.1 10.8 3.9 8.8 7.7 6.7

Only a little fearful 18.8 25.1 28.4 24.7 22.4 21.5 26.9 21.7

Not fearful at all 73.3 62.2 55.1 61.3 73.0 66.0 64.2 70.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q83 Q84 Do you own or possess any guns or firearms?

Yes 32.8 36.2 38.1 30.0 51.3 31.6 44.6 38.5

No 67.2 63.8 61.9 70.0 48.7 68.4 55.4 61.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q84 Before today have you ever heard of the Employee Assistance Program, sometimes

referred to as EAP?

Yes 84.5 83.2 87.3 68.5 87.1 83.8 98.4

No 15.5 16.8 12.7 31.5 12.9 16.2 1.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q85 Have you used the services of the Employee Assistance Program in the last two years?

Yes 15.0 14.4 15.4 9.1 15.7 11.5 23.1

No 85.0 85.6 84.6 90.9 84.3 88.5 76.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q86 Which EAP services have you used in the last two years?

(Mark all that apply.)

Help with a personal problem 48.9 52.5 49.8 47.0 53.8 38.5 38.0

Help with a work related problem 45.9 55.1 46.4 35.6 45.3 37.7 33.1

Inform them of a problem other 

employees were having 13.2 7.0 8.5 8.3 9.3 31.0 44.3

Attended orientation 3.5 2.5 3.0 3.8 7.6 2.0 4.4

Attended training or seminar 6.3 3.2 3.8 3.0 7.2 15.9 20.2

A referral for professional help 13.8 10.8 16.2 12.1 14.0 13.5 11.9

Help for family member or 

someone else 18.2 12.0 19.1 28.0 13.6 26.6 23.5

Other 9.5 7.6 11.1 6.8 14.8 4.0 6.4

Q87 Overall, how would you rate the services provided by EAP?

Excellent 19.2 17.2 17.6 27.8 16.9 32.8 23.5

Very good 27.8 30.5 26.2 25.7 21.5 28.3 33.7

Good 23.8 18.4 26.2 26.4 25.4 23.5 23.5

Only fair 17.6 17.8 18.7 13.2 23.8 10.2 12.5

Poor 11.6 16.1 11.2 6.9 12.3 5.1 6.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q88 Have you ever participated in the Workplace Violence Awareness training or other

programs about workplace violence?

Yes 19.6 13.8 15.0 12.6 16.3 44.5 70.1

No 80.4 86.2 85.0 87.4 83.7 55.5 29.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q89 Overall, how would you rate this program?

Excellent 9.9 11.1 6.6 10.1 9.0 14.8 12.1

Very good 31.0 25.1 28.7 32.2 26.9 38.5 37.5

Good 39.1 40.7 41.6 40.1 35.9 36.5 35.9

Only fair 15.1 17.1 16.8 15.4 20.6 8.4 11.5

Poor 4.9 6.0 6.3 2.2 7.6 1.8 3.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q90 Have you ever heard of Zero Tolerance for violence as a USPS policy?

Yes 77.9 75.4 77.7 71.2 83.2 78.9 95.0

No 22.1 24.6 22.3 28.8 16.8 21.1 5.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q91 How effective is Zero Tolerance in your facility?

Very effective 34.9 30.8 31.5 51.8 25.0 65.9 35.5

Somewhat effective 25.5 24.6 26.8 18.4 30.0 11.4 33.9

Neither effective nor ineffective 24.1 29.0 23.7 23.3 20.3 19.2 17.4

Somewhat ineffective 7.5 7.0 8.8 3.0 11.2 1.1 7.8

Very ineffective 8.2 8.6 9.3 3.5 13.6 2.4 5.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q92 Do you feel the Zero Tolerance policy is applied fairly?

Yes 61.7 61.8 56.7 81.7 44.4 85.7 64.6

No 38.3 38.2 43.3 18.3 55.6 14.3 35.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q93 Q85 How many of the people you work with most closely currently drink beer, wine or other 

alcoholic drink at least once a week?

None 7.1 7.3 3.4 7.6 9.0 5.4 33.4 3.4

A few 18.8 18.2 15.6 19.3 22.3 18.6 15.3 16.6

Some 15.3 15.8 17.4 16.6 11.9 17.4 6.4 15.8

About half 11.9 9.8 13.9 8.5 6.8 10.1 4.9 9.7

Most 23.2 13.9 17.4 13.2 8.4 16.5 5.8 16.3

Don’t know 23.7 35.0 32.3 34.8 41.6 31.9 34.3 38.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q94 Q86 In the past year, how often did you see someone you work with closely appear to be

under the influence of alcohol while working?

Daily 1.9 4.6 3.6 5.4 1.0 14.5 0.3 2.1

Weekly 2.8 6.1 5.7 7.5 2.0 11.1 0.7 4.8

Monthly 2.1 3.6 3.4 4.3 1.6 5.5 0.5 3.3

Less than once a month 8.2 8.6 9.9 9.3 3.5 10.7 2.3 10.7

Never 72.3 54.9 51.4 49.9 79.4 28.6 91.0 61.8

Don't know 12.6 22.1 26.1 23.6 12.5 29.6 5.1 17.4

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q95 Q87 How many of the people you work with most closely currently use marijuana at least once a week?

None 34.6 27.4 21.6 25.6 40.7 15.5 67.1 25.1

A few 9.0 5.0 6.4 4.9 2.1 9.3 0.7 2.8

Some 3.9 2.3 2.4 2.6 0.9 4.5 0.1 2.1

About half 1.8 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.1

Most 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.2

Don't know 49.7 64.6 68.9 66.1 56.2 68.7 32.0 69.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q96 Q88 In the past year, how often did you see someone you work with closely appear to be 

under the influence of marijuana while working?

Daily 1.8 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.5

Weekly 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.6 0.2 3.5 0.2 1.0

Monthly 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.1 0.1 0.7

Less than once a month 2.8 1.4 1.3 1.8 0.1 2.6 0.3 1.4

Never 67.1 53.4 50.2 48.9 76.0 29.7 89.1 57.1

Don't know 24.7 41.9 45.9 45.8 23.2 57.7 10.4 39.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q97 Q89 How many of the people you work with most closely currently use other illicit drugs

at least once a week?

None 38.9 28.2 24.1 24.9 41.9 17.1 68.8 27.4

A few 4.6 2.6 2.9 2.6 1.2 5.4 0.3 2.4

Some 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.2 3.0 0.1 0.9

About half 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

Most 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2

Don't know 54.2 67.6 71.7 70.6 56.6 73.4 30.8 69.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q98 Q90 In the past year, how often did you see someone you work with closely appear to be

under the influence of other illicit drugs while working?

Daily 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.2 0.1 3.0 0.1 0.8

Weekly 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.5 3.5 0.1 1.1

Monthly 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.7

Less than once a month 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.6 0.8 2.2 0.1 2.2

Never 67.6 53.7 48.3 50.5 75.8 31.2 89.4 57.5

Don't know 27.2 42.2 48.2 45.1 22.6 58.5 10.1 37.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.1: Survey Data Frequencies

(Percents)

Ques. # QUESTION USPS SUBSAMPLES USPS National

(If questions differ, USPS 

version is shown first

followed by the National 

version)

NationalUSPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

Q99 Q91 Do you think you are more likely than the average American worker to be a victim of

violence at work from people you work with?

Yes 3.4 16.6 20.2 18.4 5.8 21.0 3.6 13.8

No 88.4 62.6 54.5 60.2 81.4 49.3 90.4 73.6

Don't know 8.2 20.8 25.3 21.4 12.8 29.7 6.1 12.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q100 Q92 Do you think you are more likely than the average American worker to be a victim of

violence at work from people you don't work with?

Yes 15.2 15.6 22.7 13.6 11.6 11.3 12.8 13.1

No 66.5 57.2 48.6 58.1 65.1 53.4 69.8 67.9

Don't know 18.3 27.2 28.7 28.3 23.3 35.3 17.4 19.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
158 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

PHYSICAL ASSAULT 

 TOTAL 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.7 2.1 8.9 0.7 2.2

 Gender

 Male 5.6 5.0 4.7 5.6 1.9 9.2 0.8 2.2

 Female 4.6 4.7 5.9 5.8 2.3 7.6 0.6 2.3

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 4.8 4.8 5.4 5.9 2.2 10.6 0.7 2.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 6.4 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 2.6

 Hispanic 8.0 4.2 2.8 5.0 12.0 1.8 0.8

 Other 5.6 3.7 2.8 3.9 2.9 6.9 2.3

 Age

 Less than 25 8.4 9.9 7.9 15.4 13.3 Z

 25 to 34 6.8 4.6 2.8 5.7 1.6 12.6 0.7 1.9

 35 to 44 4.7 5.8 5.5 7.0 2.6 9.0 0.9 3.9

 45 to 54 4.2 4.5 5.6 4.7 2.6 8.6 0.9 1.6

 55 to 64 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.6 1.2 5.5 0.2 0.9

 65 and over 2.4 5.3 7.7 9.7 4.5

 Marital Status

 Married 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.5 2.0 8.5 0.7 1.7

 Not married 6.5 6.6 6.9 7.4 2.3 9.6 0.4 3.5

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 15.8 6.6 6.7 Z 7.6 3.5

 Tour 2/Days 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.4 2.2 9.3 0.7 1.5

 Tour 3/Other 4.8 6.5 8.3 5.6 Z 9.2 Z 6.2

 Changes 6.8 4.8 4.9 6.0 0.9 11.4 0.3 2.6

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 4.2 3.5 2.6 6.0 1.6 11.4 0.5 0.5

 11 to 25 5.4 4.4 4.2 6.3 1.3 5.9 0.5 1.5

 26 to 50 3.9 5.0 6.1 4.7 2.7 6.4 3.4 2.3

 51 to 75 8.8 4.7 5.4 4.5 3.2 5.0 2.8 1.6

 76 to 100 4.2 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 7.4 1.9

 101 to 500 5.9 6.5 5.9 6.5 4.9 13.0 1.8 3.0

 500 or more 5.1 6.5 6.7 Z 9.8 2.7

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

PHYSICAL ASSAULT BY COWORKER

 TOTAL 2.9 4.2 4.0 5.2 1.8 8.2 0.3 1.7

 Gender

 Male 4.1 4.4 3.8 5.4 1.7 8.5 0.6 1.6

 Female 1.5 3.9 4.5 4.9 1.9 7.1 0.2 1.9

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 2.7 4.3 4.3 5.5 1.9 10.0 0.3 1.8

 Black, non-Hispanic 3.3 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.9 1.7

 Hispanic 5.6 3.2 1.4 4.1 10.3 1.8 0.8

 Other 2.0 3.3 2.8 3.3 2.9 6.2 1.1

 Age

 Less than 25 4.6 7.9 2.6 15.4 10.0 Z

 25 to 34 3.3 4.2 2.3 5.2 1.0 11.7 0.7 1.9

 35 to 44 2.8 5.2 4.4 6.4 2.3 9.0 0.3 3.6

 45 to 54 2.8 3.8 4.6 4.0 2.3 7.6 0.5 1.0

 55 to 64 1.1 2.7 3.0 3.6 1.2 4.6 0.3

 65 and over 2.4 4.0 7.7 6.5 4.5

 Marital Status

 Married 2.6 3.5 3.7 4.1 1.8 8.2 0.4 1.3

 Not married 3.3 5.5 4.5 6.7 1.6 8.4 2.8

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 9.7 6.3 6.4 Z 7.1 2.9

 Tour 2/Days 2.4 3.6 4.0 4.9 1.9 8.6 0.4 1.2

 Tour 3/Other 3.4 6.2 8.3 5.6 Z 8.2 Z 4.5

 Changes 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 0.9 11.4 2.1

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 2.2 2.4 4.1 1.1 10.1 0.3 0.5

 11 to 25 2.7 3.5 2.4 5.2 1.3 5.0 1.5

 26 to 50 2.9 4.0 4.5 4.3 2.2 5.9 3.4 1.0

 51 to 75 4.6 4.3 5.1 3.9 3.2 6.3 1.6

 76 to 100 1.9 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.3 6.4 2.4

 101 to 500 2.5 6.3 5.4 6.5 4.9 12.4 2.4

 500 or more 4.1 6.5 7.1 Z 9.2 1.9

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

PHYSICAL ASSAULT BY OUTSIDER

 TOTAL 2.3 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

 Gender

 Male 1.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3

 Female 3.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3

 Black, non-Hispanic 3.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4

 Hispanic 3.1 0.6 1.4 0.9

 Other 4.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 1.1

 Age

 Less than 25 3.8 2.0 5.3 3.3 Z

 25 to 34 3.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7

 35 to 44 2.1 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3

 45 to 54 1.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3

 55 to 64 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.3

 65 and over

 Marital Status

 Married 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3

 Not married 3.3 0.6 1.7 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 6.7 0.1 Z 0.2 0.6

 Tour 2/Days 1.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.2

 Tour 3/Other 1.4 0.0 Z Z 1.1

 Changes 3.8 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.5

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 2.0 0.7 2.6 1.1 0.4 0.2

 11 to 25 2.7 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.5

 26 to 50 1.3 1.0 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.0

 51 to 75 4.2 0.0 2.8

 76 to 100 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1

 101 to 500 3.7 0.0 0.3 1.8

 500 or more 1.0 0.1 Z 0.8

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

 TOTAL 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.2 6.9 19.3 3.6 11.2

 Gender

 Male 16.3 11.3 11.5 12.3 5.0 15.3 3.4 9.8

 Female 16.5 16.7 23.0 18.3 8.3 32.7 3.7 13.7

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 15.8 13.9 16.1 18.7 7.1 19.7 3.5 11.6

 Black, non-Hispanic 17.7 16.0 15.6 15.7 3.9 21.0 5.8 12.6

 Hispanic 21.4 11.9 9.7 14.0 3.4 20.5 3.6 6.1

 Other 16.7 5.4 3.7 6.1 2.9 8.5 4.3 3.4

 Age

 Less than 25 26.5 19.8 15.8 25.6 9.5 33.3 4.5 Z

 25 to 34 23.2 19.8 15.3 24.9 7.8 33.2 7.4 19.8

 35 to 44 18.2 17.1 18.1 18.3 8.6 26.1 4.6 16.3

 45 to 54 8.9 11.1 12.3 12.3 7.1 12.3 4.3 9.2

 55 to 64 4.8 5.7 9.0 5.8 2.7 5.9 1.0 6.1

 65 and over 4.0 3.5 6.5 7.7 0.6 4.5

 Marital Status

 Married 13.5 10.6 11.8 11.8 6.1 16.0 3.3 8.9

 Not married 20.4 19.3 20.0 20.5 9.4 24.4 4.8 17.1

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 26.6 17.0 11.1 16.9 Z 17.9 18.6

 Tour 2/Days 14.9 12.1 14.6 13.6 6.8 19.1 3.7 9.4

 Tour 3/Other 13.8 17.8 33.3 16.5 Z 20.9 Z 16.3

 Changes 25.7 13.1 8.2 16.7 7.5 17.1 3.1 14.1

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 10.1 6.8 2.6 10.5 3.4 19.0 3.2 4.5

 11 to 25 16.6 11.3 6.0 15.7 6.5 16.3 3.1 10.3

 26 to 50 15.7 11.4 12.0 12.9 7.4 12.3 6.7 7.2

 51 to 75 20.3 15.7 17.0 15.6 11.1 20.0 13.9 9.8

 76 to 100 16.3 15.8 15.8 15.8 16.3 19.1 6.5 13.3

 101 to 500 20.1 18.5 22.6 16.9 14.7 21.4 9.1 15.6

 500 or more 20.1 18.0 18.2 Z 24.6 11.6

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY COWORKER

 TOTAL 13.9 12.0 12.0 14.2 5.6 17.9 2.1 9.8

 Gender

 Male 14.3 10.0 9.8 11.1 4.3 14.2 2.4 8.8

 Female 13.4 14.8 18.3 17.4 6.6 30.5 2.0 11.7

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 13.5 12.4 14.0 15.3 5.8 15.2 2.1 10.3

 Black, non-Hispanic 15.0 14.3 11.5 14.9 3.9 19.4 3.5 11.3

 Hispanic 17.1 10.6 6.9 14.0 20.5 1.8 4.5

 Other 14.6 4.7 1.9 6.1 2.9 7.7 1.1

 Age

 Less than 25 22.8 15.4 7.9 23.1 6.3 33.3 Z

 25 to 34 19.3 17.9 13.5 22.7 5.9 32.0 2.9 17.9

 35 to 44 15.1 14.9 13.9 17.4 7.3 23.9 2.9 13.7

 45 to 54 8.6 10.1 11.2 11.6 5.8 11.1 2.4 8.2

 55 to 64 3.6 4.9 8.2 4.5 2.4 5.5 0.9 5.8

 65 and over 1.7 3.5 6.5 7.7 0.6 4.5

 Marital Status

 Married 11.3 9.4 10.0 11.1 5.2 14.4 1.9 8.0

 Not married 17.6 17.3 16.7 19.1 7.2 23.3 3.2 14.7

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 22.0 15.8 11.1 15.5 Z 17.3 17.4

 Tour 2/Days 12.7 10.4 12.1 12.5 5.6 17.1 2.2 8.3

 Tour 3/Other 12.4 17.2 33.3 16.3 Z 19.3 Z 13.5

 Changes 20.7 11.3 6.6 14.7 6.6 17.1 1.4 12.0

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 7.3 5.5 2.6 9.0 2.3 17.7 1.7 3.5

 11 to 25 14.3 10.0 5.4 13.8 6.0 14.8 2.0 8.8

 26 to 50 12.8 9.9 9.3 12.5 6.3 11.8 6.7 6.5

 51 to 75 16.9 14.3 15.2 14.9 10.0 17.5 13.9 8.3

 76 to 100 13.7 13.7 13.3 14.4 13.0 18.1 3.2 11.4

 101 to 500 17.8 16.3 18.0 15.7 10.8 20.5 5.5 13.4

 500 or more 18.3 17.4 18.2 Z 22.7 11.0

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY OUTSIDER

 TOTAL 2.4 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.3 1.4 0.2

 Gender

 Male 1.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1

 Female 3.0 1.2 3.9 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.4

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 2.2 0.9 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 1.3 0.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 3.2 0.8 3.1 0.5 2.3 0.4

 Hispanic 4.3 0.7 1.4 3.4 1.8 0.8

 Other 2.1 0.1 0.8 4.3

 Age

 Less than 25 11.3 4.3 7.9 2.6 3.2 4.5 Z

 25 to 34 3.7 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.3 0.4 4.4

 35 to 44 3.8 1.1 2.7 0.2 0.9 0.6 1.7 0.5

 45 to 54 2.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 1.7 0.2

 55 to 64 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2

 65 and over 1.2

 Marital Status

 Married 2.2 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.4 0.1

 Not married 2.7 1.1 2.9 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.7 0.5

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 4.7 0.3 0.3 Z 0.2 0.6

 Tour 2/Days 2.1 1.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.2

 Tour 3/Other 1.4 0.2 0.2 Z 0.2 Z

 Changes 4.6 1.3 1.6 1.3 0.9 2.9 1.4

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 2.9 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.5 0.5

 11 to 25 2.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7

 26 to 50 2.6 1.2 2.1 0.4 0.8

 51 to 75 3.4 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.3

 76 to 100 2.6 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.5

 101 to 500 2.1 1.3 3.8 0.5 2.0 0.3 3.6 0.2

 500 or more 1.9 0.1 Z

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

VERBAL ABUSE

 TOTAL 32.8 35.8 39.3 37.6 24.5 41.9 17.2 35.1

 Gender

 Male 30.7 35.8 39.6 35.4 21.5 40.9 22.5 33.4

 Female 35.2 35.8 38.5 39.9 26.7 45.2 14.8 38.2

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 32.6 37.3 43.3 40.8 24.5 47.1 17.4 35.5

 Black, non-Hispanic 32.4 34.9 32.3 35.9 25.5 36.0 16.3 36.5

 Hispanic 36.3 31.0 28.5 32.2 20.7 44.4 14.5 28.8

 Other 33.4 28.0 30.6 25.6 26.5 36.9 12.8 29.5

 Age

 Less than 25 45.6 40.4 42.1 43.6 31.7 40.0 18.2 Z

 25 to 34 36.7 40.9 44.2 40.2 27.5 54.3 11.0 51.9

 35 to 44 33.8 39.6 40.6 43.1 26.2 44.8 22.8 38.9

 45 to 54 29.5 35.7 41.2 36.6 25.1 39.7 18.8 33.7

 55 to 64 19.9 23.5 20.1 26.9 18.3 30.1 12.7 27.7

 65 and over 12.7 12.0 23.1 9.7 7.4 19.2 4.8 31.8

 Marital Status

 Married 28.9 34.0 37.5 36.5 24.0 41.4 17.1 32.5

 Not married 38.3 39.0 43.1 38.9 26.1 43.2 17.9 41.6

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 39.8 39.3 33.3 38.6 Z 41.7 47.1

 Tour 2/Days 31.6 34.8 39.5 38.5 24.6 36.8 17.8 31.9

 Tour 3/Other 38.2 35.6 41.7 31.9 Z 45.9 Z 43.8

 Changes 40.7 40.4 31.1 48.7 27.4 40.0 15.3 42.7

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 26.8 24.3 26.3 32.6 18.1 34.8 14.3 27.2

 11 to 25 35.3 37.4 35.5 44.8 24.4 43.5 30.1 29.7

 26 to 50 34.5 37.3 41.1 36.6 27.5 35.3 40.4 35.0

 51 to 75 36.7 37.4 39.0 35.7 32.6 40.0 41.7 40.4

 76 to 100 36.2 39.2 40.6 35.6 38.2 45.7 35.5 43.1

 101 to 500 36.8 38.7 41.0 37.8 33.3 41.3 30.9 36.8

 500 or more 31.4 39.0 44.4 37.9 Z 47.1 9.1 34.2

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

VERBAL ABUSE BY COWORKER

 TOTAL 25.1 29.8 32.4 31.1 20.9 39.7 9.7 29.6

 Gender

 Male 23.7 30.2 32.7 30.0 17.5 38.8 13.0 28.2

 Female 26.5 29.3 32.5 32.2 23.4 42.8 8.3 32.4

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 25.1 31.0 36.0 33.3 21.0 44.9 9.6 30.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 21.5 30.0 25.5 31.4 17.6 33.3 14.0 30.3

 Hispanic 29.2 26.0 22.9 27.3 17.2 43.6 9.1 22.0

 Other 25.3 22.9 25.9 19.4 20.6 35.4 10.6 28.4

 Age

 Less than 25 34.9 31.5 31.6 33.3 28.6 33.3 9.1 Z

 25 to 34 28.7 35.5 37.7 34.9 22.9 52.6 3.7 41.5

 35 to 44 25.5 32.5 33.3 34.3 22.9 42.2 13.6 33.8

 45 to 54 22.8 29.9 33.7 31.1 20.5 37.4 10.4 28.1

 55 to 64 14.5 19.9 17.2 22.0 16.8 28.8 7.8 24.4

 65 and over 5.7 9.4 23.1 6.5 5.6 19.2 1.8 18.2

 Marital Status

 Married 21.7 28.1 31.0 29.5 20.6 39.3 9.7 27.5

 Not married 29.9 33.3 35.2 33.7 22.0 40.8 10.3 35.5

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 29.9 36.4 33.3 35.4 Z 39.5 44.8

 Tour 2/Days 24.1 27.9 32.5 29.0 21.0 33.9 10.1 26.6

 Tour 3/Other 32.8 33.4 33.3 29.9 Z 43.8 Z 38.8

 Changes 29.7 31.3 24.6 37.3 22.6 42.9 8.3 32.8

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 19.8 16.9 23.7 21.0 14.3 31.0 7.7 23.6

 11 to 25 27.8 31.8 29.5 37.7 20.8 40.8 14.3 27.5

 26 to 50 25.3 30.4 33.3 28.9 24.3 33.8 32.6 26.1

 51 to 75 26.1 32.1 34.7 29.2 27.9 38.8 25.0 29.5

 76 to 100 24.9 31.0 31.7 27.4 35.0 43.6 25.8 31.8

 101 to 500 27.7 34.4 32.6 35.2 30.4 40.1 23.6 32.2

 500 or more 27.2 35.5 44.4 33.6 Z 44.8 32.1

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.2: Victimization in Past Year by Employee and Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

VERBAL ABUSE BY OUTSIDER

 TOTAL 7.7 4.3 5.4 4.4 2.8 1.1 7.1 3.9

 Gender

 Male 6.9 4.1 5.2 4.0 3.0 1.0 8.7 4.0

 Female 8.7 4.5 5.9 4.8 2.7 1.4 6.4 3.8

 Race/Ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 7.5 4.9 5.8 5.4 2.8 1.1 7.4 3.8

 Black, non-Hispanic 10.5 3.2 5.2 2.7 5.9 1.3 3.5 4.5

 Hispanic 7.1 3.4 4.2 3.3 3.6 5.3

 Other 8.1 2.5 3.7 2.2 2.9 0.8 2.1 1.1

 Age

 Less than 25 10.7 6.1 10.5 5.1 1.6 9.1

 25 to 34 8.2 4.8 6.5 4.4 3.6 0.4 7.4 10.4

 35 to 44 8.2 4.9 5.7 5.6 2.8 1.4 8.7 3.6

 45 to 54 6.7 4.1 5.4 3.7 3.4 1.1 8.1 3.8

 55 to 64 5.1 2.8 1.5 4.0 1.5 1.4 4.5 2.4

 65 and over 7.1 1.0 1.9 2.4 9.1

 Marital Status

 Married 7.2 4.4 4.9 5.1 2.7 0.8 7.3 3.7

 Not married 8.5 3.9 6.4 2.9 3.1 1.5 6.3 4.5

 Work Shift

 Tour 1/Nights 10.4 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.7

 Tour 2/Days 7.4 5.3 5.3 7.0 2.9 1.3 7.4 4.0

 Tour 3/Other 5.4 1.0 8.3 0.7 0.8 3.4

 Changes 11.0 7.5 6.6 9.3 1.9 2.9 5.9 6.3

 Number of coworkers

 Less than 11 7.2 5.8 2.6 9.0 2.9 1.3 6.4 1.5

 11 to 25 7.2 4.1 6.0 4.5 2.7 1.2 14.8 1.5

 26 to 50 8.9 5.8 6.4 6.9 3.0 1.0 6.7 6.2

 51 to 75 10.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 4.2 1.3 16.7 6.7

 76 to 100 11.3 6.2 6.1 6.8 2.4 2.1 9.7 9.5

 101 to 500 8.9 2.9 5.9 1.9 1.0 0.3 5.5 3.3

 500 or more 4.4 1.2 11.1 0.8 1.1 1.9

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05%. Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Table C.3: Co-Worker Victimization in Past Year

by Selected Facility Characteristics

(Percent)

Facility Characteristic Physical 

Assault

Sexual 

Harassment

Verbal 

Abuse

Percent males

Above average 5.0 13.7 33.1

Below average 2.8 10.8 26.0

Percent Whites

Above average 3.8 11.7 30.6

Below average 4.7 13.9 30.2

Percent young workers

Above average 5.0 15.4 33.7

Below average 3.7 10.9 28.4

Percent veterans

Above average 5.1 13.7 32.8

Below average 3.1 11.4 27.9

Overtime rate

Above average 5.4 14.8 33.4

Below average 2.7 9.8 27.0

Termination rate

Above average 5.7 16.5 34.4

Below average 3.3 10.4 28.2

Supervisor ratio

Above average 1.5 5.3 20.2

Below average 4.8 14.3 32.7

Contract grievance appeal rate

Above average 5.9 15.3 34.8

Below average 3.3 11.2 28.4

Disciplinary grievance appeal rate

Above average 5.7 15.7 34.1

Below average 3.2 10.6 28.3

Local violent crime rate

Above average 4.2 13.1 29.8

Below average 4.2 12.1 30.7

Injury rate

Above average 5.4 15.6 34.7

Below average 2.8 9.3 25.9

Sick leave rate

Above average 5.0 14.3 32.6

Below average 2.7 9.6 26.9

Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Notes:

1. Table combines data from the Commission's survey with administrative data by USPS finance number.

2. All figures in "above average" rows differ significantly from "below average" rows (p<0.05), except for local 

violent crime rates. USPS CSSW
Table C.4: Summary Indices of Attitudes and Psychological Measures

(Percents)

USPS SUBSAMPLES

National

USPSCity CarriersAPWU Emps.Rural CarriersMail HandlersPostmastersOther Man'g'mt

 Autonomy 76.7 39.3 25.2 37.9 42.0 34.0 78.5 80.3

 (Q5/Q6 c, d, e, h)

 Pressure/Burden 29.3 38.2 55.0 31.5 21.3 37.7 29.6 47.2

 (Q5/Q6 f, g)

 Negative Attitude Toward Coworkers 14.3 31.2 30.5 36.7 17.9 42.3 8.3 28.7

 (Q16/Q17 a, f, g, j)

 Positive Attitude Toward Management 79.4 57.5 51.8 53.1 74.6 42.7 86.4 74.9

 (Q6/Q7 a, b, c, d, e, f, g)

 Autocratic Attitudes 16.8 14.4 10.5 18.5 8.8 22.2 7.8 10.0

 (Q8/Q9 a, b, d, e)

 Anger 8.1 3.9 5.3 4.0 2.0 4.4 1.3 2.5

 (Q74/Q75 a, b, j, k, l)

 Hostility 17.8 14.1 14.7 15.9 9.3 16.9 7.7 10.5

 (Q74/Q75 c, d, e, f, g)

 Verbal Aggressiveness 33.6 26.2 30.7 25.8 19.5 32.7 13.4 23.3

 (Q74/Q75 f, g, h, i)

 Physical Aggressiveness 12.2 7.5 9.9 7.2 3.7 12.4 3.1 4.3

 (Q74/Q75 a, b, c, d, e)

 Stress in Average Week 71.6 61.0 66.4 57.8 56.9 52.2 56.5 78.5

 (Q76/Q77)

 Clinical Depression 14.8 10.8 9.9 13.4 5.1 11.7 8.2 13.4

 (Q78/Q79, Q79/Q80)

 Coping 81.9 84.9 85.7 82.3 91.3 82.4 88.0 86.5

 (Q80/Q81 a, b, c, d)

 Distress and Anxiety 33.6 26.3 27.4 28.2 16.4 24.6 21.0 32.8

 (Q81/Q82)

Z = Data suppressed in cells with a base of 5 or fewer cases.

0.0 = Less than 0.05% Report of the USPS Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace
Appendix D: Screening Job Applicants to Reduce Employee Violence 211

One strategy to reduce employee violence is to

screen out job applicants who are prone to violence.

Practical, legal, and ethical considerations define the

potential of this approach. On the one hand, certain

characteristics distinguish groups of people with elevated rates of violence. On the other hand, it is difficult to identify exactly which individuals within these

groups will commit violence. For this and other reasons, there are legal and ethical objections to considering some of these characteristics in employment

decisions. Nevertheless, some promising screening

methods are both acceptable and feasible, and may

reduce the rate of employee violence. Unfortunately

there is little empirical evidence to demonstrate the

effectiveness of these methods.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BE VIOLENT?

Men are more violent than women, young people

are more violent than older people, and people of

lower socioeconomic status are more violent than

people of higher socioeconomic status. The mentally

ill, alcohol and drug abusers, and people with a history of violence also have elevated rates of violence.

The disparities can be quite substantial. One large

population-based survey found that younger people

were seven times more likely than older people to

have committed violence in the past year, and men

were twice as likely as women (Chart D.1). People

of the lowest socioeconomic status were three times

more likely to have committed violence than people

of the highest socioeconomic status. There are also

differences in rates of violence by race, although

these disappear when socioeconomic status is controlled for.1

 Racial differences in rates of violence

may be exaggerated by differential patterns of arrest

and conviction.2

Although most mentally ill individuals are not violent, people with mental illness (such as schizophrenia, major depression, or mania/bipolar disorder)

were five times more likely to have committed violence in the past year than those with no diagnosis.

Alcoholics were twelve times more likely to have

committed violence in the past year, and drug abusers were 16 times more likely.3

 There is strong evidence for the importance of past violence as a predictor of future violence. For example, Elliott reports that people who have not committed serious

violence before age 20 have virtually no risk of ever

committing serious violence.4

Appendix D: Screening Job Applicants to Reduce

Employee Violence

Chart D.1: Rates of Violence for Selected Groups

Percent Violent

Group in the Past Year

People aged 18-29 7.3

People aged 30-44 3.6

People aged 45-64 1.2

People aged 65+ < 1

Males 5.3

Females 2.2

People with:

No disorder 2.1

Alcohol abuse/dependence 24.6

Cannabis abuse/dependence 19.3

Other drug abuse/dependence 34.8

Mental illness* 10.7-12.7

* Obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, major

depression, major depression with grief, mania or bipolar

disorder, schizophrenia.

Source: Jeffrey W. Swanson et al., “Violence and Psychiatric

Disorder in the Community: Evidence from the Epidemiologic

Catchment Area Surveys,” Hospital and Community Psychiatry,

Vol. 41, No. 7, July 1990.
212 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

LEGAL LIMITATIONS

In spite of their association with violence, using age,

gender, or race as criteria for employment would

raise obvious legal and ethical problems. Because

socioeconomic status is so closely linked with race

and ethnicity, it raises similar issues. Indeed, eliminating racial, gender, and age discrimination has

been a major goal of social policy in recent decades.

Accordingly, we focus on mental illness, substance

abuse, and prior violence. Although there are legal

and ethical concerns in these areas as well, employers have more latitude. A number of laws constrain

employers' ability to obtain and use information

about applicants in these areas. The major relevant

laws include:

* Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

* Civil Rights Act of 1964,

* Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, and

* Drug Abuse Offense and Treatment Act of

1972.

Rehabilitation Act

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits all federal

agencies, including USPS, from discriminating on

the basis of disability. The provisions of the Rehabilitation Act are similar to those of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which governs

private employers.

Under these provisions, USPS may not ask applicants questions related to disabilities, or gather and

review medical information on an applicant until a

job offer is made. Mental illness, alcoholism, and

drug addiction are generally considered disabilities,

although employers are not required to tolerate current illegal drug use or use of drugs or alcohol that

interferes with job performance. Testing for illegal

drugs is not considered a medical examination and

may be required at the pre-offer stage.

USPS is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of

a qualified handicapped applicant, except when the

accommodation imposes an undue hardship on

USPS or if the applicant's disability constitutes a direct threat to safety. Thus, USPS might be justified

in screening out applicants on a case-by-case basis if

there is a history of violent behavior associated with

a mental illness or with substance abuse. However,

USPS would not be justified in excluding all people

who have disabilities associated with elevated rates

of violence.

Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, or

national origin. Because arrest and conviction rates

are higher for certain minority groups, courts have

prohibited employers from using arrest or conviction

records in employment decisions unless the practice

can be justified as a business necessity. Typically,

employers must show that the nature of the crime is

related to the nature of the employment. Business

necessity may cover violent crimes if the safety of

employees or the public is a concern. Courts have

been less tolerant of the use of arrest records than

conviction records, because an arrest without conviction is not proof of criminal activity. Thus, USPS

might be justified in screening out applicants with a

history of violent criminal activity on a case-by-case

basis if the behavior suggests that the applicants

would pose a threat. However, USPS would not be

justified in screening out all applicants with a criminal history. Any blanket policy excluding people

with certain types of convictions is likely to be challenged as well.

Veterans' Preference Act

The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 gives preference in hiring to certain veterans, such as those who

served during a conflict and certain disabled veterans. The law also gives certain disabled veterans

special appeal rights if they are not hired.
Appendix D: Screening Job Applicants to Reduce Employee Violence 213

Drug Abuse Offense and Treatment Act

of 1972

Under this act, an employer may not exclude a job

applicant based on prior drug abuse. Although

USPS is not governed by this act, it has instituted a

hiring policy consistent with the act.

Summary of Legal Issues

In summary, these legal constraints mean that the

Postal Service cannot simply screen out all applicants with mental illnesses or with a criminal history.

Mental illnesses, including alcoholism and drug addiction, are generally considered disabilities, and

USPS must make reasonable accommodations for

otherwise qualified applicants with these conditions.

However, USPS may require applicants to be tested

for illegal drugs. USPS may also choose not to hire

applicants whose disabilities cannot be reasonably

accommodated or whose disabilities pose a direct

threat to safety.

USPS may consider an applicant's history of violent

behavior, but cannot simply screen out any employee

with a criminal record. Using information on criminal history may be justified if the criminal history is

related to the requirements of the job, including requirements to behave nonviolently toward fellow

employees and the public. Use of information on

convictions is generally more justifiable than use of

information on arrests.

While these legal constraints are limiting, they do

leave a number of screening methods available.

These include background checks (e.g., criminal,

employment, and military), interviews and written

applications, medical examinations, psychological

testing, and drug testing.

PRACTICAL ISSUES

In addition to legal limitations, practical issues present challenges in screening applicants for violence.

The most important of these is the difficulty of predicting precisely which individuals will be violent. In

addition, there may be difficulties in obtaining criminal, employment, and military records.

Obtaining Records

Obtaining criminal, military, and employment records requires the cooperation of individuals and institutions. Criminal records include federal, state,

and county systems. For practical reasons, employers typically limit record checks to those states

in which an applicant lists having lived or worked.

Some employers check only the current and last

states of residence. Thus, a criminal conviction

might not be discovered if an employee omits from

his application the state in which it occurred. Of

course, violent behavior that does not lead to arrest

or conviction will not be discovered through criminal records, making employment reference checks

and interviews important as additional sources of

information.

Unfortunately, some employers are reluctant to provide references for former employees because they

fear lawsuits. Indeed, some make it a policy to provide no information beyond dates of employment

and salary. Thus, violent or threatening behavior at a

previous job might not always be discovered by

checking employment records.

Predicting Individual Violence

Although it is possible to identify groups of people

with elevated rates of violence, it is very difficult to

predict precisely which individuals will become violent. In the general population, the difficulty stems in

part from the low incidence of violent behavior.

Most of the research on the predictability of violent

behavior has focused on clinical and forensic populations— that is, people with mental illness or a history of criminal behavior.5

 The weight of the evidence from research over the past two decades is
214 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

that predictions of individual violence within these

populations are at best modestly more accurate than

chance.6 For example, one recent study asked psychiatrists and nurses to assess the potential for violence over the next six months by patients treated in

an acute psychiatric emergency room. Those patients assessed as more likely to commit violence

had an actual violence rate of 53 percent, compared

with a rate of 36 percent among those assessed as

less likely to commit violence.7 Although these assessments succeeded in sorting the patients into

groups with higher and lower rates of violence, the

results are hardly precise. Many other studies have

yielded even less satisfactory results. For example,

Menzies and Webster (1995) found that the prediction of dangerousness by assessors was almost universally invalid in a population of mentally disordered criminal defendants.

The trend in the prediction of violence appears to be

toward combining clinical assessments with an actuarial approach, using information such as past violence, age, and gender.8

 Indeed, the diagnosis of antisocial personality, which stands out in some research as a predictor of violence, consists in large

measure of a history of violent behavior.9

Psychological Testing

There are a number of types of psychological tests,

including aptitude, achievement, personality, and

interest tests. Personality tests are the most relevant

for screening job applicants to reduce employee

violence. Personality tests fall into two major categories: clinical personality tests designed to aid in

the diagnosis of mental illness and tests designed to

assess variations in normal personality.

Clinical personality tests raise the legal and ethical

issues discussed above. That is, to the extent that

they are likely to reveal disabilities, they are prohibited in advance of a job offer, and they raise issues

under the Rehabilitation Act. In addition, such tests

are often quite intrusive, including many highly personal questions that applicants may find offensive.

Furthermore, most such tests have been standardized on clinical or forensic populations. When applied to normal populations they may produce

anomalous results.10

Nevertheless, such tests are commonly used in

screening candidates for certain high-risk positions,

such as police. Because of the risks to public safety

from aberrant behavior in such jobs, it is easier to

justify using mental illness or psychological factors

as a consideration in hiring. However, one recent

review of psychological screening to prevent police

corruption found that "overall, the predictive scales

did very poorly."11

Normal personality tests typically assess people

along five dimensions:12

* emotional stability,

* openness to experience,

* extraversion,

* likeability, and

* conscientiousness.

Normal personality tests can be used to try to match

people with certain types of jobs. For example, extraversion may be a valuable quality for sales positions. Conscientiousness has emerged as a useful

predictor for performance in a variety of jobs. One

of the most common uses of normal personality tests

in employment screening is to predict the likelihood

of theft or other counterproductive work behavior.

Tests used for this purpose are usually called honesty or integrity tests. A 1990 review by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment concluded that "the existing research is insufficient as a

basis for supporting the assertion that these tests can

reliably predict dishonest behavior in the workplace."13 Other reviews, including a review by the

American Psychological Association, have reached

more favorable conclusions.14 However, none of the

dimensions of normal behavior has been consistently

correlated with violent behavior outside the laboratory setting.15
Appendix D: Screening Job Applicants to Reduce Employee Violence 215

Summary of Practical Issues

The paramount practical issue in screening applicants to reduce employee violence is the difficulty of

predicting individual violence. Professional assessments of clinical or forensic populations have proved

to be only modestly more accurate than chance. Predictions in normal populations are hampered by a

lack of proven indicators of likely violence. The effectiveness of psychological testing may be hampered in the employment context by job applicants'

motivation to provide desired, rather than truthful,

responses. In addition, background checks may not

always yield desired information about applicants'

past behavior because of bureaucratic complexities,

applicants' dishonesty, or previous employers' reluctance to provide information.

CONCLUSION

In light of practical, legal, and ethical considerations,

the best strategy for screening applicants to reduce

employee violence appears to be a mixed approach

focusing on evidence of applicants' past violent behavior. Criminal, employment, and military records;

interviews; and written applications may reveal this

evidence. Drug testing may also be used to exclude

current users of illegal drugs. While mental illness

and certain demographic characteristics are associated with elevated rates of violence, it is very difficult to predict individual violence within groups

identified by these parameters. This lack of precision

lends weight to the legal and ethical objections to

using such information in screening job applicants.

An exception is the use of clinical personality testing

for public safety positions, where the high risks justify a tighter standard.
216 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Endnotes

1 D. Elliott, "Youth Violence: An Overview," CSPV Paper

008, www.colorado.edu/cspv/infohour/youth-violence.html,

paper presented at the Aspen Institute's Children's Policy Forum, Children and Violence Conference, February 18-21,

1994, Queenstown, Maryland; and J.W. Swanson, et al.,

"Violence and Psychiatric Disorder in the Community: Evidence From The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys,"

Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol. 41, No. 7, 1990.

2

 See, for example, M. Tonry, Malign Neglect: Race, Crime,

and Punishment in America, Oxford University Press, New

York, 1995.

3

 J. W. Swanson, et al., "Violence and Psychiatric Disorder in

the Community."

4

 D. Elliott, "Youth Violence: An Overview."

5

J. Bonta, M. Law, and K. Hanson, "The Prediction of

Criminal and Violent Recidivism Among Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Meta-Analysis," Psychological Bulletin,

Vol. 123, No. 2, 1998, pp. 123–142; R. Menzies and C. D.

Webster, "Construction and Validation of Risk Assessments

in a Six-Year Follow-Up of Forensic Patients: A Tridimensional Analysis," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 5, 1995, pp. 766–778; J. Monahan,

"Mental Disorder and Violent Behavior," American Psychologist, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 511–522; and J. Monahan,

"The Scientific Status of Research on Clinical and Actuarial

Predictions of Violence, in D. L. Faigman, D. K. Kaye, M. J.

Saks and J. Sanders (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The

Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Vol. 1, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, 1997.

6

 J. Monahan, et al., Executive Summary: The Macarthur

Violence Risk Assessment Study. www.ilppp.virginia.edu/

macarthur/violence.html, 1999.

7

 C. W. Lidz, et al., "The Accuracy of Predictions of Violence

to Others," Journal of the American Medical Association,

Vol. 269, No. 8, 1993, pp. 1007–1011.

8

 J. Bonta, M. Law, and K. Hanson, "The Prediction of

Criminal and Violent Recidivism Among Mentally Disordered Offenders," and J. Monahan, "The Scientific Status of

Research on Clinical And Actuarial Predictions of Violence."

9

 J. Bonta, M. Law, and K. Hanson, "The Prediction of

Criminal and Violent Recidivism Among Mentally Disordered Offenders."

10 R. M. Guion, Personnel Testing, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1965, p. 315.

11 J. O. Boes, C. J. Chandler, and H. W. Timm, Defense Personnel Security Research Center, Monterey, California, undated, www.securitymanagement.com/library/polint.html,

accessed 11/99.

12 M. R. Barrick and M. K. Mount, "The Big Five Personality

Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, 1999, pp. 1–26.

13 U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-Employment Screening, OTA-SET-442

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1990.

14 D. S. Ones, C. Viswesvaran, and F. L. Schmidt, "Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Integrity Test Validities: Findings

and Implications for Personnel Selection And Theories of Job

Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 4,

1993, pp. 679–703.

15 For an exception, see B. J. Bushman and G. L. Wells,

"Trait Aggressiveness and Hockey Penalties Predicting Hot

Tempers on the Ice," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83,

No. 6, 1998, pp. 969–974.
Appendix E Substance Use and Workplace Violence 217

hhjhj

Introduction .........................................................................................................219

SUBSTANCE USE AND VIOLENCE..................................................................219

SUBSTANCEG USE AND THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE ...................................219

SUBSTANCE USE AND WORKPLACE VIOLENCE .............................................219

Substance Use and Violence.................................................................................221

TYPES OF VIOLENCE....................................................................................222

PREVALENCE OF SUBSTANCE USE IN THE

 OCCURRENCE OF VIOLENT EVENTS ...........................................................223

LICIT DRUGS AND VIOLENCE.......................................................................225

Alcohol ...........................................................................................225

Benzodiazepines and Other Sedative-Hypnotics. .............................227

ILLICIT DRUGS AND VIOLENCE ....................................................................227

Marijuana.......................................................................................227

Amphetamines and Methamphetamines...........................................228

Cocaine...........................................................................................229

Opioids...........................................................................................229

Phencyclidine (PCP).......................................................................230

Hallucinogens.................................................................................230

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................231

Substance Use and the American Workplace .....................................................232

PREVALENCE OF SUBSTANCE USE IN THE WORKPLACE.................................232

Prevalence Estimates......................................................................232

EFFECTS OF SUBSTANCE USE ON THE WORKPLACE.......................................233

Job Performance and Productivity ..................................................233

Absenteeism ....................................................................................233

Accidents and Injuries.....................................................................233

Job Turnover...................................................................................235

Substance Use and Workplace Violence..............................................................236

References.............................................................................................................238

Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 219

Introduction

A substantial proportion of the American workforce

uses alcohol and illicit drugs. Alcohol and many

illicit drugs are closely linked with violence through

a variety of complex social, psychological, and biological processes. Yet, little research has focused on

the role of alcohol or illicit drugs in workplace

violence.

In order to understand the relationship between substance use and workplace violence, it is critical to

understand first the relationship between substance

use and violence in general, and substance use in

relation to the American workplace. Thus, this appendix is organized in three parts: first substance use

and violence, second substance use and the American workplace, and finally substance use and workplace violence.

SUBSTANCE USE AND VIOLENCE

The links between psychoactive substances and

violence involve broad social and economic forces,

the settings in which people obtain and consume the

substances, and the biological and psychological

processes that underlie human behavior. Most

alcohol and drug use occurs among persons who are

not violent. However, alcohol and illicit drugs are

present in both offenders and victims in many violent

events.

In the case of alcohol, evidence from laboratory and

empirical studies supports the possibility of a causal

role in violent behavior. Similarly, the effects of

stimulants, such as amphetamines and cocaine, also

suggest that these substances could play a contributing role in violent behavior. One study found that

the prevalence of violence among persons who met

criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence was 12 times that among persons with no

substance abuse or mental or emotional disorder.

The prevalence among those with cannabis abuse or

dependence was nine times higher than among those

with no disorder, and the prevalence among those

with other drug abuse or dependence was 16 times

higher than among those with no disorder.

On the other hand, most real-world studies indicate

that the relationship is exceedingly complex and

moderated by a host of factors in the individual and

the environment. Substance use may lead to violence

in part through social processes such as drug

distribution systems (systemic violence) and violence

used to obtain drugs or money to purchase them

(economic compulsive violence), as well as from the

pharmacological effects (behavioral toxicity or

psychopharmacological violence).

SUBSTANCE USE AND THE AMERICAN

WORKPLACE

Studies show that a substantial percentage of the

overall workforce uses alcohol and illicit drugs.

Recent research has begun to dispel the image of the

isolated and unemployed substance user. For

example, although a higher percentage of the

unemployed use drugs, the majority of drug users

are employed full-time. Illicit drug use is also more

common in certain occupations, notably food and

beverage service, transportation, and construction

workers. Heavy alcohol use is also most common

among these occupations as well as laborers and

production workers.

Substance use has been found to impair job performance and productivity; increase absenteeism,

accidents and injuries, and job turnover; and contaminate the work atmosphere, adding substantially

to the expense of doing business in America.
220 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

SUBSTANCE USE AND WORKPLACE

VIOLENCE

Although the job-related consequences of substance

use have been studied, few researchers have examined the role of substance use in workplace violence.

The majority of the studies on substance use and

violence are conducted outside the realm of the

workplace. Studies on workplace violence often fail

to discuss the potential role of substance use. Many

researchers and experts apparently assume or believe

that a connection exists, but researchers have not

systematically examined the interaction between

workplace violence and substance use.
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 221

Substance Use and Violence

The term "substance" can refer to a drug of abuse, a

medication, or a toxin. There are eleven classes of

substances: alcohol, amphetamines, caffeine, cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants, nicotine,

opioids, phencyclidine (PCP), and sedatives, hypnotics, or anxiolytics (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). For the purposes of this

appendix, caffeine, nicotine, and inhalants will be

excluded because little evidence exists for an association between caffeine or nicotine and violence,

and adults do not typically use inhalants.

Most alcohol and drug use occurs among persons

who are not violent (Fagan, 1990). However, alcohol and illicit drugs are present in both offenders and

victims in many violent events. Although substance

abuse, particularly alcohol, has been associated with

violent behavior for many decades, research has

rarely documented causal linkages due to the many

variables that may be involved (Allen, Moeller,

Rhoades & Cherek, 1997; Johnson & Belfer, 1995;

Paglia & Room, 1998). The connection between

substances and violent behavior is complex and is

suggestive rather than conclusive (Bennett &

Lehman, 1996; Fagan, 1993a; Johnson & Belfer,

1995; Roth, 1994). We still know little about the

specific causal role, if any, that substances play in

the perpetration of violence (Fagan, 1993b; Roizen,

1993; Roth, 1994). The link between substances and

violence has been described as a network of interacting processes and feedback loops, rather than

straightforward causation (Fagan, 1993a; Reiss &

Roth, 1993).

The use of substances occurs in contexts that

influence the potential for violent outcomes. The

presence of alcohol or drugs in violent events does

not necessarily mean that these substances affected

the behavior of either the perpetrator or victim (as

cited in Fagan, 1993a). Furthermore, different

substances affect individuals differently, based on

their physiology, psychology, history, gender, and

other personal and cultural factors (Collins, 1993;

Reiss & Roth, 1993). Researchers have found it

difficult to cut through these complexities to specify

the effects of substances on violence. This task is

even more difficult because the causes of violence

are complex and violent acts are diverse. For

example, acts as different as an angry attack by a

jilted lover and meticulously planned serial killings

are included in the legal and statistical category of

murder (Roth, 1994).

In addition, the links between psychoactive substances and violence are confounded by broad social

and economic forces, the settings in which people

obtain and consume substances, and the biological

and psychological processes that underlie all human

behavior. These factors interact in chains of events

that may extend back from an intermediate triggering event such as an argument to long-term predisposing processes that begin in childhood (Roth,

1994).

Psychosocial factors also have been found to play a

role in violence. Psychosocial factors include influences on the individual's behavior patterns, which

begin developing in early childhood and continue to

evolve through adulthood. Examples include patterns of heavy drinking and aggression that develop

during adolescence and adult psychoses that predispose a few individuals toward violent psychotic

episodes while under the influence of certain drugs

(Roth, 1994). Patterns of aggressive behavior and

substance abuse often become intertwined starting in

childhood. Early childhood aggression predicts later

heavy drinking, and the combination is associated

with above-average risk of adult violent behavior,

especially among those who also abuse other

psychoactive drugs (Roth, 1994). Studies have also
222 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

shown that impulsive-aggressive personality traits in

childhood and adolescence predict early onset of

substance abuse (as cited in Cloninger, 1999).

Individual histories of aggressive and violent behavior are a critical determinant of whether alcohol and

psychoactive drug use increases those behaviors

(Reiss & Roth, 1993). Some say that the best

predictor of future violence is a past history of

violence (as cited in Resnick & Kausch, 1995). Although many people behave aggressively when

under the influence of drugs, they are more likely to

behave that way if they also exhibit such behavior

when not on drugs (Warshaw & Messite, 1996).

Finally, gender also appears to be of fundamental

importance in modifying the relationship between

alcohol use and violent behavior (Reiss & Roth,

1993). National surveys report that male drinking

patterns are more likely than those of females to

incorporate binge drinking and aggressive behavior,

and that violent behavior while under the influence

of alcohol is very rare among females (as cited in

Fagan, 1990; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b).

Even though causality has not been firmly established between substance use and violence, research

has consistently shown a significant relationship between use of alcohol and drugs and the perpetration

of violence. The following sections describe current

knowledge about substance use and violence.

TYPES OF VIOLENCE

Alcohol and drugs modify encounters between

people in a variety of ways that increase the risk of

violence. In the case of alcohol, these hazards tend

to be related to use, while for illicit psychoactive

drugs, they tend to be related to distribution and

purchase (Roth, 1994).

There are three basic ways in which substance abuse

is related to violence. First, violence can be perpetrated under the influence of substances. Goldstein

(1985) labels this type of violence "psychopharmacological violence." Psychopharmacological violence

occurs as a result of the short- or long-term use of

certain drugs that produce excitability, irritability,

paranoia, or violent behavior. Psychopharmacological violence can also occur when the

use of substances results in changes or impairments

in cognitive functions, intensified emotional states,

or disruptions of hormonal or physiological functions that motivate or restrain violence. A drug can

reduce inhibitions in persons prone to violent behavior. The behavior of individuals high on drugs

may also place them in situations where they are

more likely to be victims of violence.

Under the influence of some drugs, emotions such as

suspicion and anger are likely to be intensified, along

with diminution or loss of cognition and impairment

of the biochemical and psychological mechanisms

that tend to inhibit aggressive behavior under normal

circumstances. Violent behavior is a likely result

(Reiss & Roth, 1993). Pertinent neurobiologic

relationships have been discovered between certain

psychoactive drugs and violence, but certainly no

basis for a blanket assertion that taking any of them

causes people to behave violently. To start with,

each of these drugs produces its own distinct array

of biological changes. Their effects on the body are

not alike. For any drug, the particular changes

depend on the acute dose level, the long-term

pattern of drug use, and whether the concentrations

in the brain and body are rising or falling. How these

changes affect aggressive or violent behavior

depends not only on interactions with endocrine,

neurochemical, and genetic mechanisms, but also on

interactions with processes at the micro- and macrosocial levels (Reiss & Roth, 1993).

Psychopharmacological violence may involve substance use by either the perpetrator or victim. For

example, substance use may contribute to a person

behaving violently, or it may alter a person's behavior in such a manner as to bring about that person's

violent victimization (Goldstein, 1985), such as increasing the use of insulting language or reducing

the tendency to walk away from threatening situations.

The second type of violence that is related to substance use stems from the trade in drugs (Johnson &

Belfer, 1995). This type of violence has often been

labeled "systemic violence." Systemic violence refers
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 223

to the aggressive patterns of interaction within the

system of drug distribution and use (Goldstein,

1985). Examples of systemic violence include

murders over drug turf and violence by drug distributors in the course of territorial disputes, retribution for selling "bad" drugs, the use of threats and

violence to enforce rules within a drug-dealing

organization, fighting among users over drugs or

drug paraphernalia, battles with police, and elimination of informers (Goldstein, 1985; Roth, 1994).

Substantial numbers of users of any drug become involved in drug distribution as their drug-using careers progress and, hence, increase their risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of systemic violence.

Victims of systemic violence are usually those involved in drug use or trafficking (Goldstein, 1985).

Occasionally, however, noninvolved individuals become victims of systemic violence, for example, as a

bystander hit by a stray bullet in a drug-related

shooting.

The third type of violence is called "economic compulsive violence" (Goldstein, 1985). Economic compulsive violence is intentional violence that results

from drug users engaging in violent crime to generate money to support their addiction. For example, an individual may resort to robbery in order to

support a costly drug habit. Economic compulsive

violence is motivated primarily by the need for

money to purchase drugs, rather than by impulses to

act out violently. Violence generally results from

some factor in the social context in which the

economic crime is committed. For example, violence

may be related to the perpetrator's own nervousness,

the victim's reaction, or weaponry carried by either

the perpetrator or victim (Goldstein, 1985).

Economically based violence applies to all substances for which there is no legal market (Lavine,

1997). The two drugs most commonly linked to

economic compulsive violence are heroin and cocaine, because of their expense. Most heroin users,

however, avoid violent crime if a viable non-violent

alternative is available. Victims of economic compulsive violence, like those of psychopharmacological

violence, can be anybody (Goldstein, 1985).

Overlap between the three types of violence often

occurs. For example, a heroin user preparing to

commit a robbery may use alcohol or stimulants to

give himself courage (Goldstein, 1985). This event

contains elements of both economic compulsive and

psychopharmacological violence. A study in New

York City during the late 1980s classified most of

the drug-related murders as systemic violence (74

percent), seven percent as economic-compulsive,

and three percent as pharmacological (Goldstein,

Brownstein, & Belluci, 1989). Since this period was

the peak of the turf battles over crack, it is not clear

whether this same distribution would be found

today.

PREVALENCE OF SUBSTANCE USE IN

THE OCCURRENCE OF VIOLENT

EVENTS

A number of studies show that use of alcohol and

other substances is involved in many violent incidents. In a community sample, Swanson and colleagues (1990) found that substance abuse was the

most prevalent diagnosis among those who were

violent. The same study found that the prevalence of

violence among persons who met criteria for a

diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence was 12

times that among persons with no substance abuse

or mental or emotional disorder. The prevalence

among those with cannabis abuse or dependence

was nine times higher than among those with no

disorder, and the prevalence among those with other

drug abuse or dependence was 16 times higher than

among those with no disorder (Swanson, Holzer,

Ganju & Jono, 1990).

Several studies have also found drinking to precede

at least half of all violent events (Pernanen, 1991;

Roth, 1994). In fact, drinking more than five drinks

per occasion increases the likelihood that the drinker

will be involved in violence, either as perpetrator or

a victim (Collins & Schlenger, 1988). More than any

other group, young adults are likely to have been

drinking prior to being either a perpetrator or victim

of fatal or nonfatal violence (Pernanen, 1976; Welte

& Abel, 1989). Alcohol use by both attacker and
224 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

victim is common in incidents of rape, assault,

robbery with injury, and family violence (Fagan,

1993a, 1993b; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b; Roizen,

1993). In addition, Roizen (1993) reports that in

nearly 40 studies of violent offenders, and an equal

number of studies of victims of violence, alcohol

involvement was found in about 50 percent of the

events and people examined.

Alcohol is more closely linked to murder, rape,

assault, and child and spouse abuse than any other

substance (Martin, 1993; Parker & Rebhun, 1995;

Pernanen, 1991; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b). Alcohol is

implicated in most homicides arising from disputes

or arguments (Bradford, Greenberg & Motayne,

1992; Pernanen, 1991). More widely available and

abused than illicit drugs, alcohol has been found to

be a key factor in the rising homicide rates in the

United States between 1960 and 1980 (Parker &

Rebhun, 1995). To put this in perspective, moreover, it should be noted that there are approximately

15 million alcoholics or problem drinkers, while the

number of cocaine addicts is estimated to be between two and 3.5 million.

Alcohol has often been found to be a contributing

factor in incest, child molestation, spouse abuse, and

other family violence (Leonard, 1993; Miczek,

Weerts & DeBold, 1993; Widom, 1993). Alcohol is

present in more than half of all incidents of domestic

violence (Collins & Messerschmidt, 1993; Gorney,

1989). The percentage of batterers who are under

the influence of alcohol when they assault their

partners ranges from 48 to 87 percent (Gorney,

1989). Most research indicates a 60 to 70 percent

rate of alcohol abuse and a 13 to 20 percent rate of

drug abuse related to domestic violence (Collins &

Messerschmidt, 1993; Gorney, 1989). A study by

the Department of Health and Human Services in

New York City found that 64 percent of all reported

cases of child abuse and neglect were associated

with parental use of alcohol and other drugs. In addition, it is estimated that between one-third and

three-quarters of sexual assaults involve alcohol

consumption by the perpetrator, the victim, or both

(Collins & Messerschmidt, 1993).

Only a few studies have examined the relationship

between chronic drinking and the potential for

violent behavior (Reiss & Roth, 1993). These

studies have found that problem/chronic drinkers or

alcoholics are more likely than others to have

histories of violence, including more previous arrests

for a violent crime (Collins, 1986; Reiss & Roth,

1993; Roth, 1994; Schuckit & Russell, 1984).

Conversely, a high rate of alcoholism has been found

among violent offenders (Greenberg, 1981; Reiss &

Roth, 1993).

Studies have also found that a substantial proportion

of inmates incarcerated for violent crimes are substance-involved. For example, among violent offenders the majority (73 percent in state prison, and 65

percent in both federal prison and in jail) have regularly used drugs or have a history of alcoholism or

alcohol abuse; committed their crime to get money

for drugs; or were under the influence of drugs or

alcohol at the time of their crime (The National

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at

Columbia University [CASA], 1998). The U.S.

Department of Justice reports that 54 percent of

people convicted of violent crimes in state prisons

had used alcohol just before the offense (Flanagan &

Maguire, 1990). Another study found that 60 percent of arrestees for violent offenses tested positive

for at least one illegal drug: opioids, cocaine, PCP,

barbiturates, amphetamines, methadone, benzodiazepines, methaqualone, propoxyphene, or marijuana

(National Institute of Justice, 1996). Cocaine is the

drug most often detected among arrestees (43

percent of male and 47 percent of female arrestees)

and marijuana was detected in 26 percent (CASA,

1998).

Almost all of the common drugs of abuse can lead to

violent behavior, though often by very different mechanisms (Lavine, 1997). In addition, biological

links between psychoactive substance use and violence differ by type of drug, amount, and pattern of

use. The following sections will discuss the various

licit and illicit drugs and their relationships to violence. These relationships are summarized in Chart

E.1.
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 225

LICIT DRUGS AND

VIOLENCE

Alcohol

Alcohol is the substance most

frequently cited as being related

to aggressive and violent behavior, far more often than illicit

drugs (Bachman, 1994; Bradford

et al., 1992; Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1991; De La Rosa,

Lambert & Gropper, 1990;

Martin, 1993; Parker & Rebhun,

1995; Pernanen, 1991; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b;

Potter-Efron & Potter-Efron, 1990; Timrots, 1995;

Tonry & Wilson, 1990; Warshaw & Messite, 1996;

Zhang, Wieczorek & White, 1997). It is the substance most likely to involve pharmacological

violence (Fagan, 1990; Friedman, 1998). Alcohol

and violence are linked through pharmacological

effects on behavior and alcohol is the only psychoactive drug that in many individuals tends to

increase aggressive behavior temporarily while it is

taking effect (Roth, 1994). Some research has

shown that low acute doses of alcohol temporarily

increase, and high doses temporarily decrease

aggressive behavior in many animal species, including humans (Reiss & Roth, 1993). Low alcohol

doses were found to increase aggressive behavior in

individuals who already had high blood testosterone,

presumably as a result of testosterone action in the

brain (Reiss & Roth, 1993). The fact that males are

more likely to behave violently after consuming

alcohol also suggests the possibility of an endocrinological interaction (Reiss & Roth, 1993). Some

evidence also suggests that alcohol might be related

to violent behavior through effects on electrical

activity in the brain (Reiss & Roth, 1993).

The most common and direct link to aggression is

through alcohol intoxication (Lavine, 1997). Research has indicated that the most commonly accepted mechanism for alcohol-induced aggression, that

of disinhibition of fear via anxiolytic action, may

only be one mechanism generating this effect (Lavine, 1997). For example, alcohol can affect cognitive function in such a way as to decrease the capacity to plan actions in response to threatening situations. Alcohol may also increase the perception of

pain as a cause of greater defensive aggression.

There is also a theory that the link between alcohol

and aggression is a matter of the expectancy of the

intoxicated individual that such behavior is likely to

occur.

Alcohol withdrawal may also cause a person to

become quite irritable or agitated. Chronic alcoholism can lead to personality changes in which the

tendency to blame others becomes more prominent.

These changes plus the array of interpersonal difficulties which inevitably come from chronic drinking

often lead to aggressive verbal conflict and sometimes to physical conflict (Lavine, 1997).

Chart E.1: Types of Violence Associated with Use of

Substance

Pharmacological

Violence

Systemic

Violence

EconomicCompulsive

Violence

Violence

Uncommon

Alcohol X

Benzodiazepines

SedativesHypnotics X

Marijuana X? X

Amphetamines/

Methamphetamines X X?

Cocaine X X X

Opioids X

Phencyclidine

(PCP) X

Hallucinogens X
226 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Although much research has demonstrated the

relationship between drinking and violent behavior,

the connection is complex (Fagan, 1993a). We still

know little about the specific causal role that alcohol

plays in violence (Fagan, 1993b; Paglia & Room,

1998; Roizen, 1993). Alcohol operates in environmental, social, situational, and cultural contexts

that influence the potential for violent outcomes in

drinking situations (Fagan, 1993b). Furthermore,

alcohol affects individuals differently, based on their

physiology, psychology, history, gender, and other

personal and cultural factors (Collins, 1993; Reiss &

Roth, 1993).

Researchers have found it difficult to cut through

these complexities to specify the effects of alcohol

on violence. Nevertheless, the association between

alcohol and violence is well documented. Some possible explanations for this connection are:

? Being drunk may provide a justification— or

"alibi"— for behaviors normally proscribed by

society (McCord, 1993);

? Alcohol may contribute to the misreading of

signals by both the offender and the victim (Pihl

& Peterson, 1993b; as cited in Roizen, 1993);

? By reducing inhibitions, alcohol may impair

attention to internal behavioral cues and the consideration of consequences (Pihl & Peterson,

1993b; as cited in Roizen, 1993);

? Alcohol may decrease frontal lobe functioning,

affecting ability to handle new or threatening

situations and to develop alternative strategies to

solve problems (Pihl & Peterson, 1993a, 1993b);

and

? Alcohol may affect neurochemical systems that

mediate aggressive behavior (Miczek et al.,

1993).

Other factors such as behavior patterns when people

are not drinking, the setting in which people drink,

and local drinking customs also influence the

strength of the relationship between alcohol and violence (Roth, 1994). Collins (1981) notes that

"drinking rarely, if ever, fully suffices as an explanation for the occurrence of violence; drinking may

be relevant but only in the presence of other physiological, psychological, social or cultural factors" (p.

108). Similarly, Miczek and colleagues (1993) have

noted that "whether or not alcohol in a range of

doses... causes a certain individual to act aggressively more frequently or even to engage in 'out of

character' violent behavior depends on a host of

interacting pharmacological, endocrinological,

neurobiologic, genetic, situational, environmental,

social, and cultural determinants." For example, the

assailant may be a nondrinker who responds to the

provocative or aggressive behavior of the drinker.

Depending on how the fight goes, the drinker may

become the victim of the assault (Warshaw &

Messite, 1996). It may be the disinhibiting effect of

alcohol combined with real or perceived provocation

that is responsible for the aggressive behavior

(Kleber, 1995).

If alcohol caused violence only by making individuals behave more aggressively, violence would be

equally common in all places where drinking occurs.

In fact, however, most drinking places are rarely

scenes of violence. A few acquire reputations as

"fighting bars," where people expect drinking and

violence to go hand in hand (Roth, 1994). There are

group drinking situations or settings where violence

is expected and socially accepted (Roth, 1994). It is

not precisely known just what characteristics of a

drinking place make it a hazard for violence, but

there is supporting evidence for several possible

explanations. People who drink in "fighting bars"

may behave violently in order to fit in or to advance

socially. People who experience anger or frustration

may seek out such settings, because they believe that

drinking in these types of establishments means

social permission to engage in violent behavior

(Roth, 1994).

There is correlational evidence that the link between

chronic alcohol use and aggressive behavior remains

fairly stable through the developmental years into

adulthood (Reiss & Roth, 1993). Studies demonstrate that childhood aggression is a risk factor for

both heavy drinking and violent behavior in young
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 227

adulthood (McCord, 1983, 1988; Pulkkinen, 1983).

Alcohol may serve as a triggering mechanism to

instigate aggressive acts for those who already have

violent propensity and who find themselves in

"aggressible" situations (Feldman, 1977). For

example, several studies have found that people who

have a dispositional inclination to be aggressive are

more likely to exhibit high levels of aggression when

they consume alcohol in comparison to those who

did not drink (Bailey & Taylor, 1991; George,

Derman & Nochajski, 1989; Pihl, Smith & Farrell,

1984; Zhang et al., 1997). In addition, alcohol

abusers who abuse other psychoactive substances or

who are diagnosed with antisocial personality

disorder are at especially high risk of chronic violent

behavior (Roth, 1994).

Benzodiazepines and Other SedativeHypnotics

Sedative-hypnotics use may be associated with

pharmacological violence due to the irritability and

anxiety that often result from intoxication and withdrawal (Fagan, 1993b; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b).

Sedative-hypnotics such as benzodiazepines are usually thought of as tranquilizers, yet some people who

use them become disinhibited.

Sedative-hypnotics are commonly prescribed to

ameliorate symptoms of insomnia and anxiety.

Benzodiazepines are rarely primary drugs of abuse

(Smith & Wesson, 1999). They are commonly taken

by people using other substances. Benzodiazepines

are commonly abused by patients receiving methadone maintenance for heroin addiction (as cited in

Smith & Wesson, 1999). They are also taken to

ameliorate the adverse effects of cocaine or methamphetamine, to self-medicate heroin or alcohol

withdrawal, to enhance the effects of methadone, or

to produce intoxication when other drugs are not

available (Smith & Wesson, 1999). Alcohol and

prescription drug users may also use benzodiazepines for treatment of chronic anxiety or insomnia

(Smith & Wesson, 1999).

Short-acting sedative-hypnotics such as pentobarbital or secobarbital are primary drugs of abuse.

Like benzodiazepines, sedative-hypnotic use can cooccur with other substance use, particularly alcohol.

Sedative intoxication is similar to alcohol intoxication, producing a state of disinhibition in which

mood is elevated; self-criticism, anxiety, and guilt

are reduced; and energy and self-confidence are increased (Smith & Wesson, 1999). During sedative

intoxication, the user's mood is often labile and may

shift rapidly between euphoria and dysphoria. Sedative intoxication may also produce irritability,

anxiety, and anxiousness (Smith & Wesson, 1999).

Like alcohol intoxication, intoxication from sedatives may lead to poor judgment. In addition, those

suffering from sedative withdrawal may experience

symptoms of anxiety, irritability, tremors, nightmares, and insomnia. In severe cases, sedative withdrawal may produce visual and auditory hallucinations.

ILLICIT DRUGS AND VIOLENCE

Abuse of illicit drugs is also connected to crimes of

violence, although there are relatively few sources of

data on patterns of illicit drug use and violence (Pihl

& Peterson, 1993b; Reiss & Roth, 1993). Criminals

who use illegal drugs commit robberies and assaults

more frequently than do nonuser criminals, and they

commit them especially frequently during periods of

heavy drug use (Roth, 1994). Many of the studies on

the relationship of illicit drugs and violence group all

illicit drugs together, thus failing to make a theoretical or empirical distinction between the different

types of drugs (Parker & Auerhahn, 1998).

Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily

though drug marketing; disputes among rival distributors; arguments and robberies involving buyers and

sellers; property crimes committed to raise drug

money; and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions between the illegal markets and the

surrounding communities (Roth, 1994).

Chronic use of opioids, amphetamines, marijuana, or

PCP eventually can also alter the nervous system in

ways that disrupt social communications, an effect

that may increase one's involvement in altercations

that escalate to violence (Reiss & Roth, 1993). The
228 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

following is a description of illicit drugs and their

relationship to violence.

Marijuana

Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug today

and has been used for centuries for its mood altering

effects (Gold & Tullis, 1999; Martin, 1999). Marijuana produces an altered state of consciousness

characterized by mild euphoria, relaxation, perceptual alterations including time distortion, enhancement of ordinary sensory experiences, impairment of

short-term memory, and impairment of motor skills

and reaction time (Gold & Tullis, 1999; as cited in

Martin, 1999).

In general, marijuana use has been found to depress

activity (Reiss & Roth, 1993). Use of marijuana in

moderate doses has been found to temporarily

inhibit violent and aggressive behavior in animals

and humans (Reiss & Roth, 1993). In some cases,

however, when marijuana is taken in high doses or is

extremely potent, it can have psychoactive effects

that are difficult to differentiate from those of hallucinogens such as LSD (Gold & Tullis, 1999).

Paranoid ideation and persistent paranoia ranging

from suspiciousness to frank delusions may also be

associated with use (Gold & Tullis, 1999).

Marijuana can cause psychiatric disorders such as

panic attacks, paranoia, anxiety, and even psychoses,

especially in individuals predisposed to a psychiatric

illness (as cited in Gold & Tullis, 1999). Withdrawal

from marijuana may also produce concomitant

anxiety, irritability, and stress (Gold & Tullis, 1999).

Amphetamines and Methamphetamines

Considerable investigation has been made into a

possible pharmacological link between amphetamines and violence. Amphetamines, particularly

methamphetamines, are among the most commonly

abused illicit stimulants in the United States (Fischman & Haney, 1999). Among the most important

behavioral effects of amphetamines are their moodaltering properties, which can occur with both acute

and chronic administration. A significant consequence of chronic amphetamine abuse is the development of behavioral pathology. In its extreme, this

pathology can include psychosis characterized by

paranoia, impaired reality testing, and hallucinations

(as cited in Fischman & Haney, 1999). Amphetamine-related psychosis may last as long as several

days or weeks.

Amphetamine use has been associated with increased crime and violence (Kosten & Singha,

1999). Chronic amphetamine use seems more closely related to violent behavior than is use of other

psychoactive drugs. The potential for sudden, intense acts of violence is one of the most attentiongetting facets of amphetamine action (Miczek &

Tidey, 1989). Amphetamines can cause irritability

and physical aggression. Chronic amphetamine intoxication, particularly by the intravenous route,

produces a psychotic, paranoid state, including

frightening delusions that may result in aggressive

acts (Miczek & Tidey, 1989).

Amphetamine intoxication may also cause hyperawareness, hypervigilance, and psychomotor agitation. With increased dosage and duration of administration, amphetamines can produce a delirium

which is associated with becoming disoriented, confused, fearful, and anxious (Kosten & Singha, 1999).

During high dose amphetamine use, individuals can

experience stimulant-induced psychosis

characterized by delusions, paranoid thinking, and

compulsive behavior. Psychosis is induced more

commonly by amphetamines than by other stimulants

such as cocaine, perhaps because it is difficult to

maintain high chronic levels of cocaine in the body,

as compared with the much longer-acting amphetamines. Withdrawal from amphetamines can

produce symptoms of depression, anxiety, agitation,

and intense drug craving (as cited in Kosten &

Singha, 1999). The strength of the effect, however,

depends on the user's prior psychiatric condition

(Reiss & Roth, 1993). After large doses of amphetamines certain individuals may experience

violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting

psychosis (Roth, 1994).

Most recently, methamphetamine use has been

linked to pharmacological violence (Fagan, 1993a;
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 229

Pihl & Peterson, 1993b). Methamphetamines are powerfully addictive stimulants that have been known

to cause agitation, episodes of sudden and violent

behavior, intense paranoia, psychotic behavior, and

visual and auditory hallucinations (National Institute

on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1998a). Methamphetamines are thought to be more likely than

other stimulants, such as cocaine, to cause aggression due to their longer duration. For example,

smoking methamphetamine produces a high that

lasts eight to 24 hours compared with 20 to 30

minutes for smoking cocaine (NIDA, 1998b). In

addition, methamphetamine use has recently been

associated with systemic violence in feuds between

trafficking gangs.

Cocaine

Cocaine use has been associated with the perpetration of crime and violence (Kosten & Singha,

1999). Intranasal cocaine and crack use have both

been found to be associated with pharmacological

violence (Fagan, 1993a; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b).

Cocaine is also one of the most commonly abused illicit stimulants in the United States, with properties

similar to amphetamines (Fischman & Haney, 1999).

As in the case of amphetamines, one of the most

important effects of cocaine is its mood-altering

properties and the development of behavioral

pathology. Pathology induced by cocaine use includes psychosis characterized by paranoia, impaired

reality testing, and hallucinations (as cited in Fischman & Haney, 1999). Cocaine-related psychosis,

however, tends to have a briefer duration than the

effects of methamphetamine.

Use of cocaine can cause irritability and physical

aggression, unlike marijuana or heroin, which tend

to depress activity. For example, one survey of

Toronto cocaine users found that 17 percent

reported becoming violent or aggressive following

cocaine ingestion and one third of frequent users had

aggressive feelings associated with cocaine use

(Erickson, Adlaf, Murray & Smart, 1987). As with

amphetamines, cocaine intoxication can cause hyperawareness, hypervigilance, and psychomotor agitation and delirium. With high doses of cocaine,

individuals can experience cocaine-induced psychosis characterized by delusions, paranoid thinking,

and compulsive behavior (Kosten & Singha, 1999).

Ingestion of large doses of cocaine can produce

violent outbursts in certain individuals, especially

those with preexisting psychosis (Roth, 1994). Cocaine withdrawal can also produce symptoms of depression, anxiety, agitation, and intense drug craving

(as cited in Kosten & Singha, 1999).

As with alcohol, aggressive behavior is not limited

to addicts but may be displayed by casual users.

Crack cocaine seems to have a higher association

with violence than intranasal cocaine (Pihl & Peterson, 1993b). The rapid onset and decline of its

effects produce greater levels of irritability and aggressiveness (Kleber, 1995).

While intranasal cocaine use may cause pharmacological violence, crack-related violence is also systemic, relating to battles among crack dealers for

turf and market share as well as disputes between

crack dealers and users; the flaunting of newly

acquired wealth; and the need to maintain discipline

among dealers (Goldstein et al., 1989; Hamid,

1990). Some research finds that systemic violence is

more common among crack dealers than in heroin

drug markets, where economic-compulsive violence

to buy drugs is more common (Fagan & Chin,

1990). Crack dealers are often more violent and

commit more non-drug crimes than other types of

drug dealers. This violence is not necessarily caused

by crack, and may reflect participation in criminal

activity that predated the crack dealers' involvement

with crack (Fagan & Chin, 1990).

The rising incidence of homicide and other violent

crimes in the late 1980s and early 1990s has been

attributed to use and distribution of crack (Fagan &

Chin, 1990; Goldstein et al., 1989; Moore & Kleinman, 1989). The emergence of crack in many urban

areas in the mid- to late-1980s was accompanied by

substantial increases in homicide rates, attributable

to the interplay of social and economic forces as

well as to the volatile crack distribution markets that

were typical at that time (Belenko, 1993; Fagan &

Chin, 1990).
230 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Opioids

Except for the effects of withdrawal, evidence to

support a link between opioid use and violence is

virtually nonexistent. For example, opioids are not

known to produce pharmacological violence. Opioid

use tends to depress activity. Opioids often produce

analgesia, altered mood (often euphoria), decreased

anxiety, and respiratory depression. When opioids

are injected intravenously or inhaled, users may

experience a brief, intense, usually pleasurable sensation called a "rush" or "thrill". This is followed by

a longer-lasting period of altered state— the high

(Jaffe & Jaffe, 1999).

Use of opioids (including heroin) in moderate doses

temporarily inhibits violent and aggressive behavior

in animals and humans (Reiss & Roth, 1993). Opioid

withdrawal, however, may cause irritability. During

withdrawal, individuals experience hyperalgesia,

craving, irritability, dysphoria, anxiety, restlessness,

muscle aches and bone pain, cramps, and diarrhea

(Jaffe & Jaffe, 1999; Kleber, 1999). Withdrawal can

be so severe and painful that the opioid user may be

violent in an attempt to get more drugs to reduce the

withdrawal effects (Goldstein, 1985; Lavine, 1997).

Opioids temporarily inhibit violent behavior but

withdrawal from opioid addiction tends to exaggerate both aggressive and defensive responses to

provocation (Roth, 1994).

Opioids such as heroin are far less likely than alcohol

or crack to be implicated in violent crime among

arrestees. Heroin is also not usually associated with

violence except during the withdrawal stage, which

begins about eight to 12 hours after the last dose

and may be characterized by agitation and aggression (Kleber, 1995). In some cases, addicted

individuals may commit crimes to pay for illegal

opioids (Lavine, 1997; Senay, 1999).

Phencyclidine (PCP)

Phencyclidine (PCP) is widely believed to be associated with violence, although this is based almost

exclusively on case study research. According to clinical reports, violent behavior occurs occasionally in

persons who are either under the influence of acute

doses of PCP or experiencing psychosis brought on

by long-term use of the drug (Reiss & Roth, 1993).

The frequency of such behavior is unknown. No

experimental studies of PCP and human violence

have been conducted and spontaneous PCP use

usually accompanies use of alcohol or other drugs

with confounding neurobiologic effects (Reiss &

Roth, 1993). Therefore, the pharmacological effects

of PCP are not yet well understood. There is suggestive evidence, however, that PCP use may be

associated with pharmacological violence (Fagan,

1993a; Pihl & Peterson, 1993b). PCP is one of the

longest-acting drugs of abuse and intoxication may

take up to six weeks to clear (as cited in Schnoll &

Weaver, 1999). PCP use causes a rise in blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate (Schnoll &

Weaver, 1999). It also produces brief dissociative

reactions similar to schizophrenic psychoses such as

thought distortion and depersonalization (Schnoll &

Weaver, 1999). The PCP experience is regarded as

pleasant only half the time and negative or adverse

the other half, with the dose an important but not

exclusive determinant (Schnoll & Weaver, 1999).

PCP has limited use as an anesthetic because it was

found to cause a high rate of psychotic and violent

reactions (as cited in McDowell, 1999). Higher

doses of PCP may cause hostility, paranoia, violence

and assaultiveness, impulsiveness, agitation, unpredictability, and preoccupation with death (Schnoll

& Weaver, 1999). Certain individuals may also

experience violent outbursts, possibly because of

preexisting psychosis (Roth, 1994).

Hallucinogens

Studies suggest that in itself, use of hallucinogens

particularly LSD, does not trigger violent behavior

but sometimes aggravates the effects of preexisting

psychopathology, including violent outbursts (Reiss

& Roth, 1993). Hallucinogens are a group of drugs

that produce thought, mood, and perceptual

disorders. Depending on the dosage, expectation,

and environment, they also can induce euphoria and

a state similar to a transcendental experience.

Hallucinogens alter consciousness without delirium,

sedation, excessive stimulation, or impairment of
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 231

intellect or memory. They can dilate the pupils,

increase the heart rate, and produce slight hypertension and hyperthermia (Ungerleider & Pechnick,

1999).

The emotional responses to hallucinogens can vary

markedly. Initial apprehension or mild anxiety is

common, but the most common response is euphoria. Less frequently, tension and anxiety culminating

in panic have occurred. LSD can also cause labile

mood, causing a person to shift easily from happiness to depression and back. Paranoid grandiosity

and persecutory ideation are common. Chronic

personality changes with a shift in attitudes and evidence of magical thinking can also occur with the

use of hallucinogens. An atypical schizophrenic-like

state may persist, but whether the use of hallucinogens causes or only unmasks a predisposition

to this condition is unclear. During both the acute

and chronic reaction, self-destructive behavior can

occur (e.g., thinking one can fly and jumping out a

window). Traumatic and stressful external events

can precipitate an adverse reaction (i.e., being

arrested in the middle of a pleasant experience may

precipitate an anxiety reaction) (Ungerleider &

Pechnick, 1999).

CONCLUSION

In the case of alcohol, evidence from laboratory and

empirical studies supports the possibility of a causal

role in violent behavior. As noted in the sections

above, the use of alcohol and drugs is consistently

mentioned as occurring prior or during the commission of many violent events. The psychopharmacodynamics of stimulants, such as amphetamines

and cocaine, suggest that these substances could

play a contributing role in violent behavior. Most

studies suggest that the relationship is complex and

affected by a host of individual and environmental

factors. In addition to psychopharmacological effects, substance use may lead to violence through

social processes such as drug distribution systems

(systemic violence) and violence used to obtain

drugs or money to purchase them (economic compulsive violence). The next section reviews the

prevalence of substance use in the American workplace.
232 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Substance Use and the American Workplace

PREVALENCE OF SUBSTANCE USE IN

THE WORKPLACE

Considerable information exists on the prevalence of

substance use in society, but data on the prevalence

of use in the workplace is not as well developed.

Recent research has begun to dispel the image of the

isolated and unemployed substance user (Lehman,

Farabee, Holcom, & Simpson, 1995).

Prevalence Estimates

Although data indicate that since the late 1970s,

substance use among members of the general

population and the workforce has been decreasing, a

sizable proportion of the population is still affected

(Gfroerer, 1997; Normand et al., 1994). Substance

use has been found to be relatively high among workers in certain industries such as construction and

relatively low among professionals (Cook, 1989;

Normand et al., 1994). Heavy alcohol use has been

relatively stable over the past several years. Rates of

heavy drinking are notably high among young adult

men, especially those in the military and in such

industries as construction, transportation, and

wholesale goods (Normand et al., 1994).

One of the best sources of the estimates of overall

prevalence is the National Household Survey on

Drug Abuse (NHSDA). The NHSDA collects

information by administering questionnaires to a

representative sample of the population age 12 and

older at their places of residence. It uses sampling

techniques specifically geared to measure prevalence

for a representative sample of the overall working

population. The remainder of this section will focus

on recent findings of the NHSDA.

In 1997, the most recent year for which data are

available, 7.7 percent of full-time workers, 9.3 percent of part-time workers, and 16.5 percent of the

unemployed reported current illicit drug use. One

seventh (13.7 percent) of full-time workers, 16.3

percent of part-time workers, and 26.6 percent of

the unemployed reported illicit drug use in the past

year. Among current illicit drug users in the

workforce in 1997, 13.0 percent were unemployed,

16.6 percent were employed part-time, and 70.4

percent were employed full-time (Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 1999).

Lifetime, past-year, and past-month alcohol use are

most prevalent among persons employed full-time.

For example, 61.9 percent of full-time employees

reported alcohol use in the 30 days prior to the

interview compared with 56.6 percent of part-time

employees, 58.8 percent of unemployed persons,

and 51.4 percent of the total population. Among

current heavy alcohol users (five or more drinks per

occasion on five or more days) in the workforce in

1997, 10.2 percent were unemployed, 12.4 percent

were employed part-time, and 77.4 percent were

employed full-time (SAMHSA, 1999).

Although the overall rate of current illicit drug use is

7.7 percent among full-time workers, four occupational categories reported current illicit drug use

at or above ten percent (SAMHSA, 1999). These include food preparation workers, waiters, waitresses,

and bartenders (18.7 percent); construction workers

(14.1 percent); other service workers (12.5 percent);

and transportation and material moving workers

(10.0 percent). Workers in administrative support

and protective services reported two of the lowest

rates of reported current illicit drug use (3.2 and 3.0

percent, respectively).

While 7.6 percent of all full-time workers reported

heavy alcohol use, rates were significantly higher

among food preparation workers, waiters, and bar-
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 233

tenders (15.0 percent), handlers, helpers, and

laborers (13.5 percent), and construction workers

(12.4 percent), precision production and repair (11.6

percent), other service workers (11.4 percent), and

transportation and material moving workers (10.8

percent). Workers in sales and in professional specialty reported the lowest rates of heavy alcohol use

(4.1 and 4.4 percent, respectively).

EFFECTS OF SUBSTANCE USE ON THE

WORKPLACE

Studies show that employee substance use may affect job performance and productivity, absenteeism,

accidents and injuries, job turnover, and the work atmosphere (Ames, Grube, & Moore, 1997; Bennett

& Lehman, 1998; Gill, 1994; Lehman, Farabee, &

Bennett, 1998; Normand et al., 1994).

Job Performance and Productivity

Deficits in workplace performance and productivity

may be related to on-the-job drinking or alcohol

consumption immediately prior to coming to work,

to repeated hangovers, or to the secondary effects of

off-the-job crises and troubles associated with

drinking even if the worker is alcohol-free during

work time (Blum, Roman, & Martin, 1993). Unfortunately, existing studies do not provide definitive

conclusions about the effects on job performance of

alcohol-related problems or alcohol consumption on

or off the job (Blum et al., 1993).

Some studies have found that workers with drinking

problems retrospectively report lower levels of job

performance. Similarly, problem drinkers have been

found to receive significantly lower ratings of overall

job performance from supervisors (as cited in Blum

et al., 1993). When specific components of job

performance are examined, however, problem

drinkers do not consistently receive lower ratings

(Blum et al., 1993). For example, problem drinkers

receive lower supervisory ratings on attendance and

dependability compared to other workers but receive

higher ratings on cooperation and need for supervision. Ratings on initiative, knowledge of job, and

quality and quantity of work are similar to nonproblem drinkers (as cited in Blum et al., 1993).

Illicit drug use, on the other hand, has been found to

be associated with increased risk of discipline. For

example, studies of Postal Service employees found

that employees who had positive preemployment

drug tests were more likely to be disciplined than

employees with negative drug tests, even though the

test results were not known to their supervisors

(Normand et al., 1990; Ryan et al., 1992; Zwerling

et al., 1990).

Absenteeism

Absenteeism is the most commonly examined behavioral dimension of the effects of substance use on

the workplace. Most research has shown that

worker substance use is associated with higher rates

of employee absenteeism (Barabander, 1993;

Bennett & Lehman, 1998; Lehman et al., 1995;

Normand et al., 1994).

A study of Postal Service employees found that employees who tested positive for drugs had significantly higher absenteeism rates than those who

tested negative in their pre-employment drug

screens. In this study, employees testing positive had

an absence rate 59.3 percent higher than the negative test group. Furthermore, employees who tested

positive were 1.97 times more likely than employees

who tested negative to use leave heavily (Normand

et al., 1990). The authors found that employees who

tested positive for marijuana were 1.5 times more

likely to be heavy leave users than employees who

tested negative for drug use. Employees who tested

positive for cocaine were more than four times more

likely to be heavy leave users. A second Postal

Service study also found that the absence rates of

marijuana and cocaine users were significantly

higher than the rate of nonusers (Ryan, Zwerling &

Jones, 1992; Zwerling et al., 1990).

Accidents and Injuries

Most research on the relationship between substance

use and workplace accidents/injuries has focused on

alcohol (particularly problem drinking and alcohol
234 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

dependence) (Macdonald, 1995). While a clear

relationship has been established between alcohol

and traffic and other accidental injuries, the evidence

implicating alcohol in workplace accidents and

injuries is less clear and is often inconsistent (Ames

et al., 1997; Dawson, 1994; Hingson, Lederman &

Walsh, 1985; Hoffmann & Larison, 1999; Webb et

al., 1994). For example, most studies do not measure or examine on-the-job or work-related (i.e.,

drinking just before work) alcohol use nor do they

study worksite samples (Ames et al., 1997; Webb et

al., 1994). Most studies of alcohol-related problems

in the workplace have focused on sample populations of alcohol-dependent employees, employees in substance abuse treatment, household

samples or hospital samples (Ames et al., 1997;

Webb et al., 1994). Dawson (1994) noted that "the

little research that has focused on alcohol as a risk

factor for occupational injury has suffered from samples that are limited by geography, industry, and the

selectivity associated with emergency room admissions and entry into treatment for alcohol problems"

(p. 656)."

In some studies, substance use has been linked to

increased risk of workplace accidents/injuries

(Bennett & Lehman, 1998; Dawson, 1994; Macdonald, 1995; Normand et al., 1994). For example,

Dawson (1994) found that episodes of heavy

drinking (five or more drinks in one day) in the 12

months preceding his or her most recent drink) were

associated with an increase in the risk of occupational injury. Those who engaged in heavy drinking

once a month had higher odds of experiencing onthe-job injury than did persons with no episodes of

heavy drinking (Dawson, 1994).

Other researchers have found that only particular

alcohol use patterns are related to accidents/injuries.

For example, several studies have found that problem drinking (i.e., causing financial/marital problems) was significantly related to accidental injuries

at work, but high levels of alcohol consumption

were not (as cited in Gill, 1994; Webb et al., 1994).

Webb and colleagues (1994) note that while high

levels of alcohol consumption (and binge drinking)

are dangerous to health and may predispose a person

to later problem drinking or alcoholism, in themselves these behaviors do not appear to be related to

work injuries. In contrast, another study failed to

find a significant association between frequency of

drinking on the job and accidents in the workplace,

but did find that respondents who consumed an

average of five or more drinks per day had more

accidents at work than did nondrinkers (as cited in

Dawson, 1994). Hingson and colleagues (1985)

found an increased risk of injury but only among

those who drink often and heavily (five or more

drinks daily).

Finally, other studies have failed to find a relationship or have shown relatively low rates of alcohol or

other substance involvement in workplace accidents

and injuries (Blum, et al., 1993; Macdonald, 1995;

Normand et al., 1990). Of the few studies where

blood alcohol information is collected, the estimates

suggest that between three and four percent of

occupation-related injuries show evidence of alcohol

involvement (as cited in Stallones & Kraus, 1993).

Webb and colleagues (1994) also note that the

contribution of alcohol to fatal work injuries is

relatively small, with high blood alcohol concentrations typically ranging between four and eleven

percent. There is some evidence that workers with

drinking problems take precaution against on-thejob injuries by being absent following periods of

heavy drinking when they are presumably most

vulnerable to accidents (as cited in Blum et al.,

1993).

As with alcohol, the research on the relationship

between illicit drug use and accidents and injuries is

mixed. Some studies have found that drug-abusing

employees have significantly more accidents and

injuries at work than other employees (Hingson et

al., 1985; Ryan et al., 1992; Zwerling et al., 1990)

while others have found little or no relationship

between drug use and workplace accidents. For

example, Macdonald (1995) reports that the "importance of illicit drugs in overall work injuries

appears to be small, especially in relation to other

variables" (p. 710). Macdonald reports that illicit
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 235

drug use may be a cause of workplace injuries in

cases where employees are impaired by drugs on the

job. If employees use substances during leisure

hours, illicit substance use is less likely to be a cause

of injuries unless hangover or withdrawal effects are

present (Macdonald, 1995). In addition, the author

found that substance use was related to workplace

injuries only among males and the youngest age

group of workers (Macdonald, 1995). Macdonald

concluded that many job injuries stem directly from

the workplace itself, such as dangerous work

conditions and noise/dirt on the job. Normand and

colleagues (1990) also found no relationship between pre-employment drug test results and number

of workplace injuries or accidents.

More recently, Hoffmann & Larison (1999) conducted an analysis of national-level data using the

1994 NHSDA survey. The authors failed to find a

relationship between marijuana use, cocaine use,

frequent episodes of drunkenness, or symptoms of

drug dependence and increased risk of work-related

accidents. They concluded that there is little available evidence to indicate that illicit drug users are at

increased risk of work-related accidents (Hoffmann

& Larison, 1999).

Finally, although employee substance use may not

impact the employee, it may affect coworkers. For

example, Lehman and colleagues (1998) report that

employee drug use may increase the frequency of

injuries incurred by non-users as a result of careless

on-the-job behavior by substance users (Bennett &

Lehman, 1999).

Job Turnover

Several studies suggest that illicit drug use and

heavy alcohol use are associated with higher job

turnover, including a higher risk of being fired or

resigning from a job (Hoffmann & Larison, 1999;

Kandel & Yamaguchi, 1987; Lehman et al., 1995;

Zwerling, 1990). For example, although Normand et

al (1990) found no relationship between positive

preemployment drug tests and voluntary job turnover, the authors found a significant relationship

between positive drug tests and involuntary turnover

(i.e., being fired). Postal Service applicants with

positive preemployment drug tests were over 1.55

times more likely to be fired than applicants testing

negative (Normand et al., 1990). Another study of

Postal Service employees also found a higher rate of

turnover among employees who had positive

preemployment drug tests, particularly marijuana

(Ryan et al., 1992; Zwerling et al., 1990).

Similarly, a national study of full- and part-time

workers found that current illicit drug users, especially weekly marijuana users, weekly cocaine users,

and those who report symptoms of drug dependence, are at substantially higher risk of being fired

than those who have never used illicit substances

(Hoffmann & Larison, 1999). Interestingly, Hoffmann & Larison (1999) did not find former users of

marijuana or cocaine to be at higher risk of being

fired. They did, however, find that current or former

drug users were more likely to quit than nonusers

(Hoffmann & Larison, 1999). In addition, they

found that as the number of days a person is drunk

in the past year increases, the likelihood of a pastyear resignation increases.
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 237

Substance Use and Workplace Violence

While a link between substance abuse and workplace

violence is a logical extension of the welldocumented relationship between substance abuse

and violence in general, few researchers have examined the role of substance use in workplace

violence (Bennett & Lehman, 1996, U.S. Department of Labor [DOL], 1997). It appears that many

researchers and experts simply assume or believe

that a connection exists (DOL, 1997).

In addition, since a great deal of workplace violence

is committed by persons unknown to the victim, and

who may not be apprehended, it is difficult to establish the prevalence of substance use by the perpetrator (as cited in Bennett & Lehman, 1996; Davis,

1987; Pastor, 1995; Warshaw & Messite, 1996). In

those cases where the perpetrator of violence is apprehended, the time lapse between the crime and any

laboratory tests for substances tends to compromise

the results (DOL, 1997).

However, one of the few studies on the link between

substance abuse and workplace violence is

suggestive. McFarlin and colleagues (1999)

examined the prevalence of workplace violence

among substance abusers entering treatment

compared to a community sample of nonsubstance

abusers. They found that nearly five times as many

substance abusers as non-substance abusers reported

engaging in workplace violence during the year prior

to the assessment (19 vs. 4 percent). Furthermore,

twice as many substance-abusing patients reported

that they had engaged in workplace violence in their

lifetimes as participants recruited from the

community (McFarlin et al., 1999). In this study,

certain factors emerged as significant predictors of

workplace violence among substance abusers.

Patients who were men and younger were more

likely to engage in workplace violence; this finding is

consistent with other studies that have found these

characteristics to be related to violence. In addition,

the more workers abused substances, the more likely

they were to commit workplace violence (McFarlin

et al., 1999). Another study by the same authors

found frequency of substance use may be

significantly related to the occurrence of workplace

aggression in a general community sample (as cited

in McFarlin et al., 1999).

Profiles of both perpetrators and victims of workplace violence have been developed, but these

profiles are so broad as to include almost everyone

(Paul & Townsend, 1998). History of substance use

is often only one of a long list of characteristics in

the profile of a perpetrator of workplace violence

(Paul & Townsend, 1998). Studies on workplace

violence by employees often omit altogether the

potential role of substance abuse. When substance

use is listed as a potential risk factor, it is often only

in passing. For example, Pastor (1995) suggests that

"the person should be evaluated for alcohol, amphetamine, cocaine, steroid, PCP or anticholinergic

use or withdrawal" (Pastor, 1995). In another study,

the authors state that stress, drugs, and layoffs are

factors that prompt workplace violence, yet they

never discuss substance use in their article (Johnson

& Indvik, 1994).

Given the complexity of workplace violence, it is not

always clear what combination of factors leads to

violence in the workplace. Each workplace has its

own culture and environment that can influence

substance abuse and violence (DOL, 1997). For

example, Kleber (1995) speculates that workplace

circumstances may exacerbate the likelihood of

alcohol/drug-related violence in a person, or workplace discipline and supportive coworkers might

constrain any tendencies to aggressive behavior.

McFarlin et al. (1999) agree, suggesting that

substance abuse coupled with perceived injustice,
238 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

drastic changes in organizational structure (e.g.,

downsizing, takeover, merger), or feelings of loss of

control on the job, may create a greater likelihood

for violence in the work environment. Job layoffs are

reported to precipitate both substance use and

psychiatric disorders, each of these being an independent risk factor for violence (Resnick & Kausch,

1995). Bennett and Lehman (1996) speculate that

when alcohol is added either to employee frustrations or criminal activity, the potential for aggression

is increased. In addition, if either individual or

organizational stresses are added to alienating

factors, personal alcohol use, or risk-prone personal

factors, the probability of drinking climates and

violence may also increase. Use of alcohol and illicit

substances by employees can reduce inhibitions, alter

reality, and empower individuals to commit acts in

which they otherwise may not engage (Elliott &

Jarrett; 1994; McFarlin et al., 1999).

Bennett and Lehman (1996) randomly sampled

municipal workers in three southwestern cities.

Their study did not assess actual violent perpetration

or victimization but instead identified factors that

put employees at risk for either witnessing violence

or behaving in an antagonistic manner at work

(Bennett & Lehman, 1996). The authors found that

a nourishing work environment may provide the

strong norms necessary for individuals with either

alcohol problems or an aggressive predisposition to

curb their behavior (Bennett & Lehman, 1996).

Individuals who work in a healthy organization and

who experience both positive situational norms and

positive job feelings were less likely to encounter

drinking climates and violence than employees who

have positive job feelings but lack a positive sense of

culture or their work situation (Bennett & Lehman,

1996). Work cultures that do not emphasize healthful living, but instead support addictive or codependent norms, may produce careless use of alcohol

(as cited in Bennett & Lehman, 1996). A lack of

positive cohesion can also set the stage for the

development of aggression by increasing social

anxiety and anger, which may lead to alcohol use as

a way of reducing awareness of these negative states

and through interaction effects, with the lack of

norms combined with alcohol eliciting aggression in

isolated or hostile employees (Bennett & Lehman,

1996). If tendencies toward alienation outweigh

tendencies toward integration and cohesion, the

chances for alcohol use and violence increase

(Bennett & Lehman, 1996). Bennett and Lehman

(1996) also found that drinking climates accounted

for a larger percentage of the violent incidents than

did demographic, personal, work setting, and stress

factors. Employees who experienced strong drinking

norms among their coworkers as well as those who

reported low cohesiveness in their work groups

were more likely to exhibit antagonistic behaviors at

work and to observe violence at work (Bennett &

Lehman, 1996).
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 239

References

Allen, T. J., Moeller, F. G., Rhoades, H. M., &

Cherek, D. R. (1997). Subjects with a history of

drug dependence are more aggressive than subjects

with no drug history. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 46, 95-103.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th

ed). Washington, D.C.

Ames, G. M., Grube, J. W., & Moore, R. S. (1997).

The relationship of drinking and hangovers to

workplace problems: An empirical study. Journal of

Studies on Alcohol, 58, 37-47.

Bachman, R. (1994). Violence against women: A

National Crime Victimization Survey Report.

Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Bailey, A., & Taylor, S. (1991). Effects of alcohol

and aggressive disposition of human physical

aggression. Journal of Research on Personality, 25,

334-342.

Barabander, C. S. (1993). Alcohol and drugs in the

workplace. In S. L. A. Straussner (Ed.), Clinical

work with substance-abusing clients (pp. 69-87).

New York: Guilford.

Belenko, S. (1993). Crack and the evolution of antidrug policy. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood

Press.

Bennett, J. B., & Lehman, W. E. K. (1996). Alcohol, antagonism, and witnessing violence in the

workplace: Drinking climates and social alienation—

integration. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao

(Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and

developing strategies (pp. 105-152). Washington,

D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Bennett, J. B., & Lehman, W. E. K. (1998). Workplace drinking climate, stress, and problem indicators: Assessing the influence of teamwork (group

cohesion). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 608-

618.

Bennett, J. B., & Lehman, W. E. K. (1999). Employee exposure to coworker substance use and

negative consequences: The moderating effects of

work group membership. Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 40, 307-322.

Blum, T. C., Roman, P. M., & Martin, J. K. (1993).

Alcohol consumption and work performance.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, 61-70.

Bradford, J., Greenberg, D. M., & Motayne, G. G.

(1992). Substance abuse and criminal behavior.

Clinical Psychiatry, 15 (3), 605-622.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1991). Violent crime in

the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau

of Justice Statistics.

Cloninger, C. R. (1999). Genetics of substance

abuse. In M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.),

Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd ed)

(pp. 59-66). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Collins, J. J. (1981). Alcohol use and criminal

behavior: An empirical, theoretical, and methodological overview. In J. J. Collins (Ed.), Drinking and

crime: Perspectives on the relationship between

alcohol consumption and criminal behavior

(pp. 288-316). New York: Guilford.

Collins, J. J. (1986). The relationship of problem

drinking to individual offending sequences. In A.

Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth, & C. Visher (Eds.),

Criminal careers and "career criminals." Vol. 1.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
240 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Collins, J. J. (1993). Drinking and violence: An

individual offender focus. In S. E. Martin (Ed.),

Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering

multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 221-236).

Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, National

Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism.

Collins, J. J., & Messerschmidt, P. (1993). Epidemiology of alcohol-related violence (Department of

Health and Human Services: Eighth special report to

the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, September, 1993). Alcohol Health and Research World, 17

(2), 93-100.

Collins, J. J., & Schlenger, W. E. (1988). Acute and

chronic effects of alcohol use on violence. Journal

of Studies on Alcohol, 49 (6), 516-521.

Cook, R. F. (1989). Drug use among working

adults: Prevalence rates and estimation methods.

NIDA Research Monograph: Drugs in the Workplace, 91, 17-32.

Davis, H. (1987). Workplace homicides of Texas

males. American Journal of Public Health, 77 (10),

1290-1293.

Dawson, D. A. (1994). Heavy drinking and the risk

of occupational injury. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 26 (5), 655-665.

De la Rosa, M., Lambert, E. Y., & Gropper, B. A.

(1990). Drugs and violence: Causes, correlates,

and consequences (NIDA Research Monograph No.

103). Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse and

Alcoholism.

Elliott, R. H., & Jarrett, D. T. (1994). Violence in

the workplace: The role of human resource management. Public Personnel Management, 23 (2),

287-299.

Erickson, P. G., Adlaf, E. M., Murray, G. F., &

Smart, R. G. (1987). The steel drug: Cocaine in

perspective. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington

Books.

Fagan, J. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. In M.

Tonry and J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime

(Crime and justice: A review of research, Vol. 13).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fagan, J. (1993a). Interactions among drugs,

alcohol, and violence. Health Affairs, 12 (4), 65-79.

Fagan, J. (1993b). Set and setting revisited: Influences of alcohol and illicit drugs. In S. E. Martin

(Ed.), Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 161-192).

Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, National

Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism.

Fagan, J. A., & Chin, K. L. (1990). Violence as

regulation and social control in the distribution of

crack. In M. De la Rosa, E. Y. Lambert, & B.

Gropper (Eds.), Drugs and violence: Causes,

correlates, and consequences. (pp. 8-43). Rockville,

Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug

Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National

Institute on Drug Abuse.

Feldman, M. (1977). Criminal behavior: A psychological analysis. London: Wiley.

Fischman, M. W., & Haney, M. (1999). Neurobiology of stimulants. In M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber

(Eds.), Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd

ed) (pp. 21-31). Washington, D.C.: American

Psychiatric Press.

Flanagan, T. J., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). (1990).

Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 1989.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Friedman, A. S. (1998). Substance use/abuse as a

predictor to illegal and violent behavior: A review of

the relevant literature. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 3 (4), 339-355.
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 241

George, W., Derman, J., & Nochajski, T. (1989).

Expectancy set self-reported expectancies, and

personality traits: Predicting interest in violence and

erotica. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 541-551.

Gfroerer, J. (1997). Preliminary Results from the

1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: H-3.

Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration.

Gill, J. (1994). Alcohol problems in employment:

Epidemiology and responses. Alcohol & Alcoholism,

29 (3), 223-248.

Gold, M. S., & Tullis, M. (1999). Cannabis. In M.

Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of

substance abuse treatment (2nd ed) (pp. 165-181).

Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Goldstein, P. J. (1985). The drugs/violence nexus: A

tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug

Issues, 15, 493-506.

Goldstein, P. J., Brownstein, P. R. & Belluci, P. A.

(1989). Crack and homicide in New York City,

1989: A conceptually based event analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 16 (4), 651-679.

Gorney, B. (1989). Domestic violence and chemical

dependency: Dual problems, dual interventions.

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 21 (2), 229-238.

Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Methodological issues in

survey research on the inhibition of crime. Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 1094-1104.

Hamid, A. (1990). The political economy of crackrelated violence. Contemporary Drug Problems, 17

(1), 31-78.

Hingson, R. W., Lederman, R. I., & Walsh, D. C.

(1985). Employee drinking patterns and accidental

injury: A study of four New England states. Journal

of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 298-303.

Hoffmann, J., & Larison, C. (1999). Drug use,

workplace accidents, and employee turnover.

Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (2), 341-364.

Jaffe, J. H., & Jaffe, A. B. (1999). Neurobiology of

opiates and opioids. In M. Galanter and H. D.

Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd ed.) (pp. 11-19). Washington, D.C.:

American Psychiatric Press.

Johnson, E. M., & Belfer, M. L. (1995). Substance

abuse and violence: Cause and consequence. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 6

(2), 113-121.

Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (1994). Workplace

violence: An issue of the nineties. Public Personnel

Management, 23 (4), 515-523.

Kandel, D. B., & Yamaguchi, K. (1987). Job

mobility and drug use: An event history analysis.

American Journal of Sociology, 92, 836-878.

Kleber, H. (1995, March 13). The relationship of

alcohol and other substance abuse to workplace

violence. Presented at the Symposium on Workplace

Violence: Preventive and Interventive Strategies.

New York, New York Academy of Medicine.

Kleber, H. D. (1999). Opioids: Detoxification. In M.

Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of

substance abuse treatment (2nd ed.) (pp. 251-269).

Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Kosten, T. R., & Singha, A. K. (1999). Stimulants.

In M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of

substance abuse treatment (2nd ed.) (pp. 183-193).

Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Lavine, R. (1997). Psychopharmacological treatment

of aggression and violence in the substance using

population. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 29 (4),

321-329.

Lehman, W. E. K., Farabee, D. J., & Bennett, J. B.

(1998). Perceptions and correlates of coworker

substance use. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13

(4), 1-22.

Lehman, W. E. K., Farabee, D. J., Holcom, M. L.,

& Simpson, D. D. (1995). Prediction of substance

use in the workplace: Unique contributions of

personal background and work environment variables. Journal of Drug Issues, 25 (2), 253-274.
242 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Leonard, K. (1993). Drinking patterns and intoxication in marital violence: Review, critique, and future

directions for research. In S. E. Martin (Ed.),

Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering

multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 253-280).

Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, National

Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism.

Macdonald, S. (1995). The role of drugs in workplace injuries: Is drug testing appropriate? Journal

of Drug Issues, 25 (4), 703-722.

Martin, B. R. (1999). Neurobiology of marijuana. In

M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of

substance abuse treatment (2nd ed) (pp. 39-45).

Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Martin, S. E. (Ed.). (1993). Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism Research Monograph 24). Rockville,

Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes

of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism.

McCord, J. (1983). Alcohol in the service of aggression. In E. Gottheil, K. A. Druley, T. E. Skodola, &

H. M. Waxman (Eds.), Alcohol, drug abuse and

aggression. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.

McCord, J. (1988). Parental aggressiveness and

physical punishment in long-term perspective. In G.

T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M.

A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences:

New directions in research. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

McCord, J. (1993). Consideration of causes in

alcohol-related violence. In S. E. Martin (Ed.),

Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering

multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 71-82).

Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, National

Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism.

McDowell, D. M. (1999). MDMA, ketamine, GHB,

and the "club drug" scene. In M. Galanter and H. D.

Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd ed) (pp. 295-305). Washington, D.C.:

American Psychiatric Press.

McFarlin, S. K., Fals-Stewart, W., Major, D. A., &

Freitas, T. T. (1999, April). Prevalence of workplace violence among substance abusers. Poster

presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the

Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology,

Atlanta, Georgia.

Miczek, K. A., & Tidey, J. W. (1989). Amphetamines: Aggressive and social behavior. NIDA

Research Monograph, 94, 68-100.

Miczek, K. A., Weerts, E. M., & DeBold, J. F.

(1993). Alcohol, aggression, and violence: Biobehavioral determinants. In S. E. Martin (Ed.), Alcohol

and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 83-119). Rockville,

Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes

of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism

Moore, M. H., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (1989). The

police and drugs. Washington D.C.: National

Institute of Justice Perspectives on Policing, no. 11

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

at Columbia University. (1998, January). Behind

bars: Substance abuse and America's prison

population. New York.

National Institute of Justice. (1996). Drug Use

Forecasting: 1995 annual report on adult and

juvenile arrestees. Research report. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998a, October).

Methamphetamine Abuse Alert. NIDA Notes, 13 (6).

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1998b, April).

Methamphetamine: Abuse and addiction. (NIH

Publication No. 98-4210). Washington, D.C..
Appendix E: Substance Use and Workplace Violence 243

Normand, J., Lempert, R. O., & O’Brien, C. (Eds.).

(1994). Under the influence? Drugs and the American work force. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Normand, J., Salyards, S. D., & Mahoney, J. J.

(1990). An evaluation of preemployment drug

testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6), 629-

639.

Paglia, A., & Room, R. (1998). Alcohol and aggression: General population views about causality and

responsibility. Journal of Substance Abuse, 10 (2),

199-216.

Parker, R. N., & Auerhahn, K. (1998). Alcohol,

drugs, and violence. Annual Review of Sociology,

24, 291-311.

Parker, R. N., & Rebhun, L. (1995). Alcohol and

homicide: A deadly combination of two American

traditions (SUNY Series in Violence). Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Pastor, L. H. (1995). Initial assessment and intervention strategies to reduce workplace violence.

American Family Physician, 52 (4 ), 1169-1174.

Paul, R. J., & Townsend, J. B. (1998). Violence in

the workplace— A review with recommendations.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 11

(1), 1-14.

Pernanen, K. (1976). Alcohol and crimes of violence. In B. Kissen, & H. Begleiter (Eds.), The

biology of alcoholism: Social aspects of alcoholism.

New York: Plenum.

Pernanen, K. (1991). Alcohol in human violence.

New York: Guilford.

Pihl, R., & Peterson, J. (1993a). Alcohol and

aggression: Three potential mechanisms of drug

effect. In S. E. Martin (Ed.), Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 1-36). Rockville, Maryland: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service, National Institutes of Health,

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Pihl, R. O., & Peterson, J. B. (1993b). Alcohol/drug

use and aggressive behavior. In S. Hodgins (Ed.),

Mental disorder and crime (pp.263-283). Newbury

Park, California: Sage.

Pihl, R., Smith, M., & Farrell, B. (1984). Alcohol

and aggression in men: A comparison of brewed and

distilled beverages. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,

45 ̧278-282.

Potter-Efron, R. T., & Potter-Efron, P. S. (1990).

Aggression, family violence, and chemical dependency. New York: Haworth Press.

Pulkkinen, L. (1983). Youthful smoking and drinking in a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 12, 253-283.

Reiss, A. J., & Roth, J. A. (1993). Alcohol, other

psychoactive drugs and violence. In A. J. Reiss & J.

A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing

violence (pp. 182-220). Washington, D.C.: National

Academy Press.

Resnick, P. J., & Kausch, O. (1995). Violence in the

workplace: Role of the consultant. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47 (4),

213-222.

Roizen, J. (1993). Issues in the epidemiology of

alcohol and violence. In S. E. Martin (Ed.), Alcohol

and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-36). Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of

Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism.

Roth, J. A. (1994, February). Psychoactive substances and violence. Washington, D.C.: National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

National Institute of Justice.

Ryan, J., Zwerling, C., & Jones, M. (1992). The

effectiveness of preemployment drug screening in

the prediction of employment outcome. Journal of

Occupational Medicine, 34 (11), 1057-1063.

Schnoll, S. H., & Weaver, M. F. (1999). Phencyclidine. In M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.),
244 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd ed)

(pp. 205-214). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Schuckit, M. A., & Russell, J. W. (1984). An

evaluation of primary alcoholics with histories of

violence. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 45, 3-6.

Senay, E. C. (1999). Opioids: Methadone maintenance. In M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber (Eds.),

Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd ed)

(pp. 271-279). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Smith, D. E., & Wesson, D. R. (1999). Benzodiazepines and other sedative-hypnotics. In M. Galanter

and H. D. Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of substance

abuse treatment (2nd ed) (pp. 239-250). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Stallones, L., & Kraus, J. F. (1993). The occurrence

and epidemiologic features of alcohol-related

occupational injuries. Addiction, 88, 945-51.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration. (1999, September 8). Worker drug

use and workplace policies and programs: Results

from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

(NHSDA). www.samhsa.gov/link990908.htm.

Swanson, J. W., Holzer, C. E., Ganju, V. K., &

Jono, R. T. (1990). Violence and psychiatric disorder in the community: Evidence from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys. Hospital and

Community Psychiatry, 41 (7), 761-770.

Timrots, A. (1995). Drugs and crime facts, 1994.

Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Tonry, M. H., & Wilson, J. Q. (Eds.). (1990). Drugs

and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ungerleider, J. T., & Pechnick, R. N. (1999).

Hallucinogens. In M. Galanter and H. D. Kleber

(Eds.), Textbook of substance abuse treatment (2nd

ed) (pp. 195-203). Washington, D.C.: American

Psychiatric Press.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1997, March). Substance abuse and workplace violence. Washington,

D.C.: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Warshaw, L. J., & Messite, J. (1996). Workplace

violence: Preventive and interventive strategies.

Journal of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, 38 (10), 993-1006.

Webb. G. R., Redman, S., Hennrikus, D. J., Kelman,

G. R., Gibberd, R. W., & Sanson-Fisher, R. W.

(1994). The relationship between high-risk and

problem drinking and the occurrence of work

injuries and related absences. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol, 55, 434-446.

Welte, J. W., & Abel, E. L. (1989). Homicide:

Drinking by the victim. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol, 50 (3), 197-201.

Widom, C. S. (1993). Child abuse and alcohol use

and abuse. In S. E. Martin (Ed.), Alcohol and

interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary

perspectives (pp. 291-314). Rockville, Maryland:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health,

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Zhang, L., Wieczorek, W. F., & Welte, J. W.

(1997). The nexus between alcohol and violent

crime. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental

Research, 21 (7), 1264-1271.

Zwerling, C., Ryan, J., & Orav, E. J. (1990). The

efficacy of preemployment drug screening for

marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment

outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264 (20), 2639-2643.
Appendix F: Methodology 245

The Commission used a range of research

approaches to accomplish its mission. These

included the most comprehensive survey on

workplace violence ever conducted; site visits and

27 focus groups with more than 350 craft employees, supervisors, and managers in ten postal performance clusters; interviews with more than 300

USPS, union, and management association officials

at the national level and in the field; a detailed analysis of postal policies and implementation; an intensive analysis of postal homicides; and analyses of

national data. The Commission gathered information

on violence prevention in other workplaces, and

sought advice from leaders in government, business,

and labor.

The Commission held six meetings from January

1999 to April 2000, and heard presentations and

testimony from USPS executives and managers,

officials of the USPS Office of Inspector General,

and workplace violence experts and consultants. All

four major national postal unions and three

management associations testified before the

Commission.

Commission staff made presentations to and

received feedback from:

* the postal labor-management summit facilitated

by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service, including the four major unions, the

three management associations, and postal

management;

* area coordinators for the USPS REDRESS

mediation program for equal employment

opportunity complaints;

* the USPS Employee Assistance Advisory

Committee; and

* the USPS Workplace Environment Advisory

Committee.

INTERVIEWS

Commission staff and contractors conducted more

than 300 interviews at the national level and in the

field. At the national level, interviewees included:

* headquarters staff in human resources, labor

relations, operations, law, and other

departments;

* officials of the Postal Inspection Service;

* officials of the Office of Inspector General;

* national officials of unions and management

associations;

* academics and experts in workplace violence and

related areas; and

* congressional staff.

In the field, interviewees included:

* arbitrators who handle postal cases,

* officials of unions and management associations,

* area vice presidents,

* area directors of human resources,

* district managers,

* district human resource managers,

* postmasters and mid-level managers,

* hiring officials,

* postal inspectors,

* safety managers,

* injury compensation managers,

* occupational health nurses,

* medical officers,

* employee workplace intervention analysts,

* communications specialists,

* labor relations staff, and

* joint labor/management employee assistance

program committee members.

Appendix F: Methodology
246 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

EMPLOYEE SURVEY

On behalf of the Commission, the firm of Schulman,

Ronca, and Bucuvalas, Inc., conducted a written

survey of Postal Service employees from July 1999

to December 1999. Twenty thousand postal

employees were selected randomly within six

groups:

* postmasters;

* other managers;

* city letter carriers;

* rural letter carriers;

* mail handlers; and

* clerks, motor vehicle operators, maintenance

workers, and others represented by the

American Postal Workers Union.

The overall response rate was 65.1 percent, yielding

a sample of 11,932 employees. Response rates for

the six subgroups ranged from 47.5 to 82.5 percent,

as shown in Chart F.1. Analyses weighted survey

responses to reflect the representation of each of the

six groups in the postal workforce.

A similar survey was sent to a random sample of

employed Americans nationwide. A national sample

of households was constructed by random digit

dialing and screened by telephone. This telephone

screening identified a national sample of persons

currently employed for pay outside the household.

The response rate for the sample of the national

workforce was 63.3 percent, yielding a sample of

3,009. Analyses weighted survey responses to reflect

the gender distribution of the national workforce.

Maximum expected sampling errors at the 95

percent confidence level for both samples are shown

in Chart F.2.

The sample of Postal Service employees was told

the sponsorship of the survey and assured of its

independence. The sample of the national workforce

was not told the sponsor of the survey, in order to

avoid potential bias. Survey respondents in both

samples were assured of the confidentiality of all

responses. The only personal identifier was the link

to the master sampling file, which was deleted from

the final database. Postal respondents were offered

time on the clock to complete the survey.

Respondents in the national workforce were offered

a $10 incentive to complete the survey.

Questionnaire Content

The questionnaire included questions about:

* victimization, including physical assault, verbal

abuse, and sexual harassment;

* perceived danger in the workplace;

* attitudes toward work;

* discrimination;

* workplace policies;

* observation of drug and alcohol use;

Chart F.2: Maximum Expected Sampling Error

(95% Confidence Level)

Sample 

Percent

Postal 

Service 

Sample +/-

National 

Sample +/-

Pooled Error 

Between 

Sample

50% 0.900 1.790 2.00

40% 0.881 1.754 1.96

30% 0.825 1.640 1.77

20% 0.720 1.432 1.60

10% 0.540 1.074 1.20

2% 0.248 0.497 0.56

Chart F.1: Final Sample Disposition

Group Frame

Undeliverabl e CompletedResponse 

Rate

City Carriers 3,334 362 1,412 47.5%

APWU Employees 3,334 366 1,800 60.7%

Rural Carriers 3,334 269 2,156 70.3%

Mail Handlers 3,334 475 1,608 56.2%

Postmasters 3,334 41 2,718 82.5%

Other Management 3,334 141 2,238 70.1%

USPS Total 20,004 1,654 11,932 65.1%

National Sample 4,842 82 3,009 63.3%
Appendix F: Methodology 247

* psychological factors; and

* employee demographics.

The full survey and responses are included in

Appendix C.

To develop questions in these areas, we reviewed

relevant literature and previous survey instruments

covering similar topics. For example, the survey

questions measuring verbal and physical

aggressiveness, hostility, and anger are based on the

Buss Aggression questionnaire, which has been

widely used and tested for reliability and validity.1

We modified questions used elsewhere— for

example, by shortening sets of questions to limit the

questionnaire's overall length. We also developed

original questions where necessary, based in part on

focus groups and pretests of the survey with postal

employees. In analyzing the survey, we combined

questions into composite scales based on factor

analysis, a standard technique that groups together

items with high correlations.

To avoid confusion over different people's definitions of violence, the Commission's survey asked

precise, concrete questions. For example, to measure physical assault, the survey asked whether anyone has:

* thrown something at you that could hurt you;

* pushed, grabbed, slapped, hit, kicked you, etc.;

* hit you with an object;

* beat you up;

* threatened you with a gun, knife, or other

weapon;

* used a gun, knife, or other weapon on you;

* raped you or attempted to rape you;

* none of these.

The Commission invited advice on the survey

content from USPS management, the four major

unions and three management associations, the

Office of Inspector General, workplace violence

experts, and others. The Commission conducted

eight focus groups with postal employees in four

cities (Baltimore, Dallas, Detroit, and Los Angeles)

to develop questions for the survey and pretested a

draft questionnaire with employees in Philadelphia

and New Jersey. The final questionnaire incorporated changes based on comments and pretest

results. The national questionnaire was a modified

version of the postal questionnaire, with questions

changed to refer to "your employer" rather than

"USPS."

Two unions— the American Postal Workers Union

and the National Association of Letter Carriers—

informed the Commission that they opposed the

survey of postal employees.

POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW

In cooperation with Commission staff, the firm of

Hewitt Associates conducted a comprehensive

review of postal policies and practices potentially

related to workplace violence. The team gathered,

reviewed, and summarized USPS materials in the

following areas:

* employee and labor relations, communication

and culture;

* staffing and selection;

* workplace environment and violence prevention;

* safety, health and security;

* managing and supervising; and

* organization structure and support.

The team conducted more than 75 interviews with

USPS headquarters staff to clarify and expand upon

the information culled from the USPS materials and

to gather information about implementation and

perceptions of USPS programs and practices. The

team also observed several REDRESS mediation

sessions. Staff at USPS headquarters, the Postal

Inspection Service, and the Office of Inspector

General reviewed the policy summaries to verify

their accuracy.

SITE VISITS

Commission staff and Hewitt Associates conducted

site visits in six performance clusters. The criteria
248 Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on A Safe and Secure Workplace

used to select the site locations were rural vs. urban

location; scores from the most recent employee opinion survey (high, medium, and low); USPS area

(no more than one location per area); and a prior

history of fatal violence. These criteria are shown in

Chart F.3.

The site visits were conducted from July 1999 to

August 1999. In total, 80 interviews and 19 focus

groups were completed during the site visits. The

site visit teams also toured facilities at each site.

Twelve facility tours included post offices, airmail

facilities, distribution plants, general mail facilities,

bulk mail facilities, and mail annexes.

Employees were randomly selected to participate in

the focus groups. The Commission canceled some

planned focus groups for NALC and APWU

members because of opposition by local union

officials. Focus groups were conducted with the

following groups:

* mail handlers,

* clerks and other APWU members,

* rural carriers,

* city carriers,

* non-career employees, and

* first-level supervisors.

To gather information about the implementation and

effectiveness of specific policies and practices, the

team conducted interviews with the following:

* district managers;

* postmasters and mid-level managers;

* district human resource managers;

* postal inspectors;

* safety managers, injury compensation managers,

occupational health nurses, and doctors;

* employee workplace intervention analysts;

* officials of unions and management associations;

* communications staff; and

* hiring officials.

In addition to the six full-scale site visits, the study

team visited the Chicago Post Office and District

Office, touring the facility and interviewing managers and union officials.

Commission members, staff, and contractors toured

24 postal facilities in all, including post offices,

airmail facilities, distribution plants, general mail

facilities, bulk mail facilities, and mail annexes.

Twelve of the tours were conducted during the site

visits.

REVIEW OF POSTAL HOMICIDES

The Commission reviewed all known workplace

homicides involving postal employees from 1986

(the year in which a postal employee killed 14

employees and himself in Edmond, Oklahoma) to

1999. Commission staff prepared written narrative

descriptions and calculated descriptive statistics,

based on Postal Inspection Service investigative

memoranda, interviews with inspectors, newspaper

accounts, and other materials.

This review included all homicides that meet the

Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of a workrelated homicide: homicides that occur while the

victim is "at work; on the work premises; while in

work status; or due to an association with the

decedent's employment, including interpersonal

interactions, even if the incident occurs outside of

the workplace."2

 We also reviewed one case in

which there were no postal victims, but the

Chart F.3: Criteria for Selecting Site

Visit Locations

Performance 

Cluster

Location 

Type

Survey 

Score Area

Prior 

Fatal 

Violence

Northern Illinoi s Rural Low Great Lake s No

Kentuckiana Rural High Mid-Atlantic No

Atlanta Urban High Southeast Yes

San Jose Rural/Urban Medium Pacific No

Las Vegas Urban/Rural Medium West Yes

Boston Urban Low Northeast Yes
Appendix F: Methodology 249

perpetrator was a postal employee who was on duty

and on site at the time of the homicide.

ANALYSIS OF USPS AND NATIONAL

DATABASES

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data

on all workplace fatalities, including homicides,

using death certificates, workers' compensation

records, and reports to federal and state agencies.

The data are known as the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI). To compare homicide rates

at USPS with homicides nationally, Commission

staff combined data from CFOI with BLS data on

the number of workers by industry. Staff made

corrections to the CFOI data on postal homicides

based on information from the Postal Inspection

Service. Specifically, we reclassified two cases in

which the victims were incorrectly listed as postal

employees and added a missing case.

Commission staff also analyzed the Postal Inspection

Service database of reported threats, assaults, and

robberies to identify patterns of violence in USPS.

BENCHMARKING STUDY

Commission staff reviewed data on the people

practices of Fortune's 1999 list of "The 100 Best

Companies to Work for in America," provided by

Hewitt Associates, and requested information from

the 50 largest private U.S. employers and three large

government employers about workplace violence

and prevention initiatives. USPS's International

Business Unit sent a similar request to 27 foreign

postal services on the Commission's behalf. The

questionnaire asked about experiences with

workplace violence and prevention efforts. Twenty

private employers, two federal agencies, and eleven

foreign postal services responded to the

questionnaire.

The Commission asked eleven of the 50 largest

private employers for the opportunity to visit them

to learn more about their experiences. The

Commission also invited eight of these employers to

survey their employees using the Commission's

survey instrument. These organizations were

selected based on three criteria: similar industry,

large number of employees, or reputation for

operational excellence. None of the employers

agreed to survey their employees. Seven

organizations agreed to participate in visits or

telephone interviews. Commission staff interviewed

management and union officials at these

organizations and reviewed written materials.

The Commission wrote to all state governors, all

members of Congress, past and current members of

the USPS Board of Governors, past Postmasters

General, and organizations representing women and

minority groups in the Postal Service, asking for

their insights into the problem of workplace violence

and potential solutions. In addition, the Commission

examined employment practices and screening

policies in the gaming industry, which has a

reputation for tight security.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Commission staff reviewed literature on

workplace violence and prevention, including

published statistics from national data sources,

previous studies of violence and related issues in the

Postal Service, and descriptions of prevention

programs in other workplaces. Commission staff

also reviewed the literature on predictability of

violent behavior.

 

ENDNOTES

1

 Arnold H. Buss and Mark Perry, "The Aggression Questionnaire," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Vol. 63, No. 3, 1992, pp. 452–459.

2

 Eric F. Sygnatur and Guy A. Toscano, "Work-Related

Homicides: The Facts," Compensation and Working Conditions, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2000.