‘For profit’ bullying as a social justice tool possibly got its start in the HR/recruiting industry with the advent of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). These programs are funding by an employer’s health insurance and are tax-deductible. They are also a financial perk for HR and staffing agencies. The use of covert monitoring and social buffering is a slippery slope where people being paid to monitor on behalf of the employer may also be tempted to monitor on behalf of their own agendas. That agenda may be to perpetuate the monitoring for financial gain or it may be the opportunity to exact their own prejudices and racial hatreds. Pretexting for bias becomes pretexing to harass, bait and provoke. Agent provocateurs for a political or religious causes.
Soliciting the help of co-workers to monitor is really a ruse for stigmatizing the targeted individual. People unconsciously treat stigmatized people differently who are acutely aware of this. This also makes the person very aware of being monitored. A of the goals of the harassment is to intentionally inflict emotional distress.
Involving colleagues in monitoring and befriending is also a way to delve into their lives in ways that it is illegal for an employer to do.
In 2007, at Olympic Reprogrpahics (a print shop) when two employees harassed me after their weekly meetings with Roleta Batiste, who could I complain to? I wasn’t invited to the meetings so I could only speculate of her connection to it. The pattern of recruiters and HR people being involved in harassment is now well established and I no longer doubt her role.
In 2007, at the University of Washington when I complained of bizarre behavior I was not told that Jennifer Wieselquist was monitoring me and I was never contacted again for work.
In 2008, when I complained to Volt in an effort to document her odd behavior that I didn’t want or need to be supervised by Christine Warren (aka King) who was not on my team, I was not informed that she was monitoring me. I now believe Christine is actually a regional VP for Volt and that there were probably several in the cubical farm we worked in that she was monitoring.
In 2009, Michele Rabourn continued to attempt to ‘ befriend’ even after my contract with Volt ended. It’s difficult to explain why I thought she was a part of the monitoring but I couldn’t get away from her fast enough. In the years since, then I’ve identified three of her family members being involved in separate harassment events and they have connections to Bethany Community Church.
Employers are assured that ‘monitoring’ improves productivity and indeed I worked long hard hours often without pay to keep my production levels higher than my co-workers because it was the only way I knew how defend myself against the nameless monster as is attested to in my my LinkedIn recommendations (see http://www.linkedin.com/in/saskiavalentine).
What happens to people who push the issue and demand to know why they are being monitored? Would they be given a referral to mental health for exhibiting paranoid behaviors. Would this then get them labeled as potentially dangerous and cause them to be black-listed? Is it possible that people have been black-listed as the result of recruiters and HR people protecting their reputations and financial niche?
Just speculating here…
- Guardian Jobs Reminds You to Monitor Your Social Sharing (pamil-visions.net)
- New Insights into Nonprofit Employee Engagement in National Research Study from Opportunity Knocks (prweb.com)
- 7 things your employees will never tell you (empwaynek.wordpress.com)
- Harassment complaints upheld against human rights agency head (vancouversun.com)
- Harassment complaints upheld against human rights agency head (canada.com)
- Campaign launched to cut workplace harassment (premierlinedirect.co.uk)
- Are Your Employees on the Clock 24×7? (bdemarest.wordpress.com)
- Does my race or religion affect my employment? (career-advice.monster.co.uk)
- Hr (learnod.wordpress.com)
- What SHRM’s Future Insights Report Means for Engagement and HR (thesocialworkplace.com)