( Facts of the Case
( Issues faced
( Multiple options of solutions recommended by you
( Best recommended solution acceptable to you
( Answers to each of the questions, of the case, very briefly
1. How liable should companies be for violent acts that are committed during work by their own employees? Answer: Companies should be fully liable for the welfare of its employees. Protective measures must be taken to ensure safe working environments for its members. 2. Can companies completely prevent workplace violence? If not, what steps can they take to reduce it? Answer: While companies may not be able to completely prevent workplace violence, they can have measures in place that evaluate the environment for signs that are dysfunctional. Additionally, companies can take precautionary measures through the use of more thorough screening policies at the point of hire. 3. Why do you think only 1 percent of companies have a formal antiviolence policy? Answer: Perhaps it is due to the fact that so few companies have directly experienced organizational violence in their workplaces. 4. Some companies are considering the installation of metal detectors to prevent workplace violence. Do you think these measures infringe too much on individual privacy? In other words, can a company take prevention too far? Answer: No it does not infringe too much on individual privacy because; Installing security devices such as metal detectors helps to prevent armed persons from entering the facility. Installing other security devices such as cameras and good lighting in hallways, installing deep service counters or bullet-resistant and shatterproof glass enclosures in reception areas are a very good preventive measures for work place violence. 5. What factors might lead to violent acts in the workplace? Are these acts committed by only a few “sick” individuals, or are many individuals capable of committing acts given certain circumstances?...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document