The California legislature recently passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553). This bill looks to tackle “workplace violence” by forcing certain businesses to adopt Workplace Violence Prevention Plans (WVPP), provide effective training annually related to workplace violence and document certain types of incidents related to workplace violence. If you are looking for a quick cheat sheet to SB 553 facts just jump to the bottom of this blog, but just in case you are interested let’s first discuss why this is a good thing and may actually make a difference in the long run.
Now, I know what everyone is thinking. Why do we need more laws in California? Especially ones that put a burden on small business owners. This is a fair feeling to have. California often leads the way with onerous regulations and we can comfortably admit that SB 553 at first glance falls into this category. The law as written is actually fairly ambiguous. It would appear the California legislature is just trying to get a win on the board to prove a point without diving too deeply into the root causes of the issue that is workplace violence. And they do this by passing that burden onto small business owners who now face a $10,000 per violation fine, enhanced civil liability and the potential of damage to business reputation.
But, how could this actually help? We, the United States, have a big problem. We like violence. It seems to be everywhere. School shootings, mass shootings, gang violence, violent robberies and the list goes on and on. We do it to ourselves and then we cover it in the never-ending news cycle. The saying “if it bleeds, it leads” is absolutely true. Media outlets push these stories to get clicks and generate revenue. The point is there is a lot violence. So how do we combat this?
At the turn of the century school fires were actually quite a big deal. Kids often would die in fires. One of the most notorious incidents occurred in 1908 in Collinwood, Ohio. At that incident 175 people, including 172 children died. Since that time, we, as a society have begun to regulate schools in how they prepare for fires. This includes drills, building material, education, first responder training and more. The result has been that there are virtually no more deaths related to school in the United States. But this effort is over a century in the making. It had to start somewhere.
While a bit controversial, it is widely recognized that the first active shooter at school that received national attention was the University of Texas tower shooting that occurred in 1966. In that incident 18 people were killed by a sniper in a tower. In most of the lifetimes of anyone reading this, the most impactful or well-known school shooting is likely the Columbine school shooting, that happened in 1999 and took the lives of 15 people.
Columbine dramatically changed the way in which law enforcement viewed and responded to school shootings. For a school shooting pre-Columbine, law enforcement’s general plan was to respond to the school, surround the school and call in the SWAT team. The issue with this was that it would take the SWAT team upwards of an hour to respond. This meant children would die or be injured.
Law enforcement tactics changed and have evolved over time. Throughout recent history and through heartbreaking experience tactics have improved and are being applied to school shootings and active shooter incidents wherever they occur. The contemporary tactic or mantra is to “stop the killing”. What this means is that law enforcement should respond as quickly as possible to any active shooter situation and first attempt to neutralize the threat and then as soon as practically possible treat trauma injuries with bridge medicine meant to keep people alive until they can get to professional medical care. Bridge medical care are things such as applying a tourniquet, packing a wound or applying an occlusive dressing.
To their credit, law enforcement for the most part is getting very good at responding to active shooter incidents. This is sad, because they have gotten good due to practice. Still, there are deficiencies. While tactics are generally similar in philosophy, there is still no standard national response. Cops in Ohio are trained differently than cops in Texas who are trained differently than copy in California. What really needs to happen is that tactics are standardized with clear and defined expectations of what to expect from the cops. Ideally, fire and emergency medical services (all first responders) would get standardized tactics and expectations based upon specific skill sets and purpose.
However, this standardization does not exist and this is a problem. In the absence of such standardization a first step in the right direction is standardizing training for those at risk of violence. In this case, employees and consumers.
As much as I hate to advocate for regulation, this is an instance where a law like SB 553 actually may help. As previously discussed, California often leads the path in terms of regulation. SB 553 is no different. California has become the first state in the United States to make “workplace violence” a Cal/OSHA regulated issue. And although it is not related to the aforementioned law enforcement response to active shooter situations, what it does do is provide a standard, albeit ambiguous one, for businesses in California to follow.
I am not a fan of having to provide training to anyone on how to survive workplace violence, but the truth is that there is need for it. In a perfect utopia, there would be no violent acts. Unfortunately, this is not the reality of the world, so we must be prepared to deal with bad people.
What I am proposing is that SB 553 may be the first step towards reducing deaths and injuries related to workplace violence to the same degree that school fires are currently are. We just have to recognize and come to the realization that that will take a significant time to happen. Long term culture shifts don’t happen overnight.
If you were to spontaneously light on fire right now. What would you do? I bet you thought to yourself that you would STOP, DROP and ROLL. You were likely taught this tactic as a young child in school. But you were not offended by it when you learned it. It was a normal part of life. Now, if I asked you for the most commonly taught tactic to survive an active shooter incident or workplace violence incident, I hope you would say the terms RUN, HIDE and FIGHT. Whether we like it or not, kids in school are being taught this now instead of STOP, DROP and ROLL. It may be offensive to me as an adult to come to grips with the reality that young children are taught this. But, to the young children learning RUN, HIDE and FIGHT it is totally normal to them. Unfortunately, RUN, HIDE and FIGHT is the new STOP, DROP and ROLL.
If we hope to ever change the culture of violence, it has to start somewhere. I am advocating that while not perfect SB 553 is that start. There is still a lot of work to do and if the government is responsible for pushing this regulation on businesses they need to help with its implementation. But that is what we want and should expect from the government in terms of regulation. Something meaningful that actually protects people.
There is still a lot of work to do and this is only the start, but this is why SB 553 matters.
Below, you will find a summary of information related to SB 553. By no means is this comprehensive. To make sure you are in compliance with SB 553 requirements you should consult with qualified experts.
WHAT IS SB553 AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT US:
SB553 amends California Labor Code 6401.7 and adds 6401.9, which goes into effect July 1st, 2024. It forces virtually every employer in California to implement a workplace violence prevention plan. This is the first law for any state that recognizes workplace violence as an occupational hazard that is regulated (CalOSHA).
WHAT IS WORKPLACE VIOLENCE:
The threat or use of physical force against an employee that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress; or an incident involving a threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, including the use of common objects as weapons, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.
WHAT MUST A WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PLAN ESTABLISH, IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN:
The plan shall be in writing, available and easily accessible to employees and must include 13 statutory requirements including.
WHAT IS A WORKPLACE VIOLENCE INCIDENT LOG:
A written record of every qualifying workplace violence incident must be created and maintained for a period of five years. The log shall be reviewed during the annual reviews and must include 9 requirements.
WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THE TRAINING:
Employers are required to provide effective training to employees when the plan is first implanted and annually thereafter, which shall be appropriate for employees and include at least 6 requirements per the statute.
RECORDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDS RETENTION:
Workplace Violence Prevention Plan to be reviewed annually, in writing and available to all employees. The workplace violence plan must include at a minimum 13 statutorily required categories.
Records of hazard identification, evaluation and correction shall be created and maintained for five years.
Training records shall be created and maintained for one year and include training dates, contents of training, names and qualifications of persons conducting training, and names and job titles of those attending the training session.
Violent incident logs shall be maintained for five years. The violent incident logs must include at a minimum 9 statutory requirements.
Post incident response and investigation results shall be maintained for five years and shall NOT include any medical information.
All records required shall be made available upon request.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON’T COMPLY WITH THE NEW LAW:
Employers who fail to comply with the new law may be subject to a $10,000 fine per violation, enhanced civil liability (employers now have constructive knowledge and duty around workplace violence which can lead to general damages awards), along with damage to reputation.
It is important to note that the requirements of this new law are just the minimum standards. There is no penalty for going above and beyond these minimum standards.