healthyworkplacebill.org The Healthy Workplace Bill

healthyworkplacebill.org
Title: The Healthy Workplace Bill
Keywords: Healthy Workplace Bill, bullying law, lawmaker, public officials, citizen lobbyists, bullying movement, Gary Namie, Ruth Namie, Workplace Bullying, Mobbing, Harassment, workplace violence, bullying,...
Description: The Healthy Workplace Bill Coordinator Login The Healthy Workplace Campaign Dr. Gary Namie, National Director The ProblemWorkplace Bullying The SolutionHealthy Workplace Bill State of the UnionState A
healthyworkplacebill.org is ranked 2708658 in the world (amongst the 40 million domains). A low-numbered rank means that this website gets lots of visitors. This site is relatively popular among users in the united states. It gets 50% of its traffic from the united states .This site is estimated to be worth $5,661. This site has a low Pagerank(0/10). It has 1 backlinks. healthyworkplacebill.org has 43% seo score.

healthyworkplacebill.org Information

Website / Domain: healthyworkplacebill.org
Website IP Address: 74.124.211.163
Domain DNS Server: ns2.inmotionhosting.com,ns.inmotionhosting.com

healthyworkplacebill.org Rank

Alexa Rank: 2708658
Google Page Rank: 0/10 (Google Pagerank Has Been Closed)

healthyworkplacebill.org Traffic & Earnings

Purchase/Sale Value: $5,661
Daily Revenue: $15
Monthly Revenue $465
Yearly Revenue: $5,661
Daily Unique Visitors 1,427
Monthly Unique Visitors: 42,810
Yearly Unique Visitors: 520,855

healthyworkplacebill.org WebSite Httpheader

StatusCode 200
Content-Type text/html; charset=UTF-8
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:24:57 GMT
Server Apache

healthyworkplacebill.org Keywords accounting

Keyword Count Percentage
Healthy Workplace Bill 25 3.14%
bullying law 0 0.00%
lawmaker 3 0.13%
public officials 0 0.00%
citizen lobbyists 0 0.00%
bullying movement 0 0.00%
Gary Namie 1 0.06%
Ruth Namie 0 0.00%
Workplace Bullying 15 1.52%
Mobbing 0 0.00%
Harassment 3 0.17%
workplace violence 0 0.00%
bullying 28 1.26%
... 0 0.00%

healthyworkplacebill.org Traffic Sources Chart

healthyworkplacebill.org Similar Website

Domain Site Title

healthyworkplacebill.org Alexa Rank History Chart

healthyworkplacebill.org aleax

healthyworkplacebill.org Html To Plain Text

The Healthy Workplace Bill Coordinator Login The Healthy Workplace Campaign Dr. Gary Namie, National Director The ProblemWorkplace Bullying The SolutionHealthy Workplace Bill State of the UnionState Activity Take ActionHow You Can Help The MovementHistory of the Campaign Press & BloggersFor the Media 32 Legislatures [30 States, 2 Territories] have introduced the HWB I Want To Help! Do you feel strongly that Workplace Bullying is wrong? Join the grassroots campaign. Volunteer to help State Coordinators enact the Healthy Workplace Bill. Volunteer to be a Coordinator in your state. Join the Campaign Now March 30th, 2016 California “clarifies” Abusive Conduct training mandate On Jan. 1, 2015 California started mandating training in Abusive Conduct for supervisors (in employers with 50 or more workers). The definition was lifted verbatim from the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) authored by Suffolk University Law Professor David Yamada. WBI and its national network of volunteer State Coordinators has been lobbying for the complete HWB since 2001. Timid, business lobby-yoked state lawmakers are afraid to take a stand for workers who suffer health harm as the result of workplace bullying. Of course, the HWB does not include the phrase “workplace bullying.” The term used is “abusive conduct.” California and Utah have mandated training. Utah’s 2015 legislation is superior to California’s, though it applies only to state agency employers. Utah requires that employers describe how they will provide protections to employees. California, at first, simply mandated the training. And the topic of abusive conduct, which is still legal until the full HWB is enacted into law in California, is to be added to mandated training on the employer’s commitment to the prevention and resolution of illegal sexual harassment. Oops. This is confusing to nearly everyone. Many HR types hardly understand the power of having protected group status membership or not. We worry that employees will conflate bullying (abusive conduct) with illegal forms of harassment, including exposure to a hostile work environment. They will falsely believe that abusive conduct is currently illegal because of the pairing with illegal forms of discrimination that violate state and federal laws. Now comes an April 1 amendment to California Fair Employment and Housing Act Regulations. The section below shows the intended clarification regarding the content of the Abusive Conduct related to Government Code section 12950.1(g)(2). The good news: the deleterious impact on the targets of abusive conduct must be discussed. Naturally, the negatives for the employer are to be included. The bad news: the regulation lifts most of our HWB definition of abusive conduct but omits the critical element describing that personal health harm can be manifested. And time devoted to abusive conduct training should be “meaningful.” Still vague. Read the amended, clarifying regulation for yourself. Tags: AB2053, abusive conduct, supervisor training, training, Workplace Bullying Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? March 2nd, 2016 Calling all Maryland State employees If you work for the State of Maryland, State Sen. Muse plans to convene a Task Force to study the extent and impact of workplace bullying and make recommendations. This is SB 689. It’s not a prohibitive law, but he clearly does care about bullying of State workers. In the past, he has been very sympathetic to bullied workers. On Tuesday March 15 at 1 pm at the Capitol, the Senate Finance Committee will hear testimony on the bill. State workers, take time off work to go testify. On the Maryland State Page, you can find the link to instructions to give testimony. The committee wants written statements prior to the scheduled hearing. Please read and follow the instructions. Good luck on March 15! On March 1, HB 1104, the same Task Force bill, was heard in the House Appropriations Committee. Union supporters included AFT, AFSCME and MPAC and one bullied MDOT former employee. You can view the video here on the State website. Testimony begins at time mark 4:09:40 and ends at 4:26:00. Tags: Anthony Muse, Maryland, SB 689, state employees, Workplace Bullying Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? February 18th, 2016 West Virginia is back with Healthy Workplace Bill WV State House Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer, along with 8 co-sponsors introduced the Healthy and Safe Workplace Act (the Healthy Workplace Bill). West Virginia was the 9th state to ever introduce the HWB. It is HB 4363. Find all the details at the West Virginia State Page at this HWB website. Contact info for all sponsors and all four committee chairs is provided for West Virginians to thank and implore legislators to pass the bill. Tags: HB 4363, Healthy Workplace Bill, West Virginia Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? February 14th, 2016 30th state introduces the Healthy Workplace Bill — Rhode Island Rhode Island Sen. Frank Ciccone, long-time labor advocate, introduced SB 2377 on Feb. 10, 2016. It is the Healthy Workplace Act of 2016, the full version of the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill. Four other state senators signed on as co-sponsors. SB 2377 makes Rhode Island the 30th state (and 32nd legislature in America) to introduce our bill. Now it’s on to the Senate Labor Committee where it awaits a public hearing. Visit the Rhode Island State Page for details and information about all the sponsors and committee chairs. Tags: Frank Ciccone, Healthy Workplace Bill, Rhode Island, SB 2377 Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? February 14th, 2016 Maryland lawmakers aim for a Task Force on Bullying in State Agencies In 2016, long-time advocate for Maryland state workers, Sen. Anthony Muse, introduced a bill to compel the state to study workplace bullying and its impact on those employees. SB 689 became a bill on Feb. 5, 2016. Sen. Muse’s bill was co-sponsored by five other Senators. If passed, the study of prevalence and impact within the state labor force by the Task Force is directed to be completed by the end of 2016. House Delegate Patrick Young and 12 co-sponsors introduced the companion bill, HB 1104. The bill carries the exact wording. Visit the Maryland State Page for details and complete contact information for all sponsors and committee chairs. Tags: Delegate Patrick Young, Sen. Anthony Muse, Task Force Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? January 28th, 2016 WA State re-introduces the HWB in 2016 ATTENTION WASHINGTON STATE RESIDENTS — ACT QUICKLY Eleven Washington State House Representatives have sponsored the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill (HB 2894). Another 11 state Senators of both parties are sponsoring the Senate companion bill (SB 6532). The HWB defines health-harming abusive conduct and makes it unlawful for employers to allow it to happen. This marks the return of the legislation to Washington, absent since 2012. Washington was the 4th state to ever introduce the legislation. If you live in the state, please visit the WA State Page at the Healthy Workplace Bill website. Contact information for all bill sponsors and committee members can be found there. You can also volunteer to testify or help the State Coordinator get the bill through committees and floor votes in a very short legislative session. TIME IS VERY LIMITED! Tags: HB2894, Healthy Workplace Bill, SB6532 Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment ? October 22nd, 2015 A look back at 2012 Freedom Week at the National Press Club: Tales from the Trenches Lana Cooke, West Virginia State Coordinator, Healthy Workplace Bill campaign Ernie Cooke, Lana’s supportive husband, Requiescat in pace dear gentle man Jane Bethel, Virginia State Coordinator, Healthy Workplace Bill campaign Neil Dias, Verizon Susan Rae Baker Tags: abusive conduct, anecdotes, bullied individuals, bullied targets, Workplace Bullying Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? October 22nd, 2015 2015 Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week: Oct 18-24 8th Annual WBI Celebration DO SOMETHING POSITIVE! ? As Targets of bullying, shame paralyzes us and prevents us from defending ourselves. ? As members of Targets’ Families, we watch in horror as our loved ones’ lives unravel before our eyes. ? As Witnesses, fear of engagement, fear of threats to our own safety, prevent us from helping targets. ? As Managers, we lack the skills to stop it, confusing bullying with conflict, which we all abhor. ? As HR, we watch helplessly because laws do not compel policies that give us authority to act. ? As Union officers, we are too occupied with survival to see how much our members are suffering. ? As Owners/Executives, we wonder why some of the most admired managers are considered abusive. ? As State Lawmakers, we fear losing business lobby support, so we ignore the Healthy Workplace Bill. Unrealistic fears, self-blame, rampant institutional indifference, and waiting for regulations are the excuses to not take positive prosocial action today to help those who are harmed by abusive conduct of others. How dare we turn our backs. Are we not moral human beings with empathy for the plight of oppressed peers? So, just this one week of the year, let’s say “no” to all the rationalizations that sustain bullying in our workplaces. Open our eyes and see the harm caused. Yes. Bullying costs employers. But bullying carries a tremendous human cost in terms of preventable stress-related injuries to the most capable workers among us. DO SOMETHING POSITIVE! Visit the Freedom Week section of the WBI website. Tell WBI the activity you plan for the week and we will post it here. Send message to namie at workplacebullying dot org. Downloadable 2015 Flyers to print for your workplace. Format #1 Format #2 Format #3 Tags: Freedom From Workplace Bullies Week, Workplace Bullying, workplace bullying institute Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? August 11th, 2015 MA Healthy Workplace Bill moves to “Third Reading” As reported by David Yamada on his blog … After being reported favorably out of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, the Massachusetts Healthy Workplace Bill has been moved to a procedural stage called “Third Reading,” which means it is now eligible for a full vote by the House of Representatives. As reported by Deb Falzoi on the Facebook page of the Massachusetts Healthy Workplace Advocates: BREAKING NEWS: The Healthy Workplace Bill, HB 1771, has been ordered to a Third Reading in the House. This step is the furthest point the bill has gone in Massachusetts in previous sessions, but this session we’ve reached it much earlier in the session. Progress! Without a doubt this is good news and increases the likelihood for a favorable result during the 2015-16 Massachusetts legislative session. MA Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee recommends support of Healthy Workplace Bill The Massachusetts Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, an office appointed by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court “to enhance and protect the rights of persons with mental health concerns in key areas most closely related to their ability to live full and independent lives free of discrimination,” has submitted written testimony in support of the Healthy Workplace Bill. MHLAC senior attorney Susan Fendell, stated in her testimony that “(t)his bill, if passed into law, will profoundly improve people’s daily lives by creating positive and consequently more productive work environments.” Attorney Fendell’s testimony shared the story of a client with a learning disability who was subjected to severe physical and verbal abuse by a new supervisor. The client filed a disability discrimination claim, but because he was not able to show that the mistreatment was grounded in his disability, he did not prevail. MHLAC offered this story as an example of the gap that needs to be filled by the Healthy Workplace Bill. MHLAC’s welcomed statement of support highlights the potential power of the Healthy Workplace Bill to safeguard the mental health of all citizens. Visit the Massachusetts State Page to read the bill. Tags: h1771, MA Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment ? August 3rd, 2015 Bullies at Weatherford College find support in Truth-averse 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Workplace bullying is endemic in healthcare and education, including higher education, for reasons discussed elsewhere at the WBI website. Now comes a story of an inept community college administration, at Weatherford College, unwilling to even consider complaints from a long-time faculty member. Professor Karen Lopez Austen about the abusive conduct she faced in the Athletics Department. The WBI 2014 U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey revealed that most employers deny complaints or justify them. In Austen’s case, they never considered the evidence she had assembled for the Board. An outsider can easily infer that the Administration, led by Kevin Eaton, had decided to not renew Dr. Austen’s contract, despite the legitimacy of her complaint. So, as was her right, Dr. Austen filed a civil suit claiming sex and ethnicity discrimination along with retaliation for daring to hold the college accountable to operate lawfully and according to internal policies. She probably, like most bullied targets, especially highly educated individuals, expected to find justice in court. We constantly warn targets that justice is rarely found and almost never in court. Remember, the college administrators refused to hear her complaint. The trial court judge did not allow Dr. Austen her day in court. Judges possess ultimate authority to grant access to their courts. Judges have two avenues to end cases before they start — dismissal or summary judgement. Targets are typically plaintiffs who sue their employers, the defense. The defense files the motion to dismiss. Dismissal is based on technical details of the case that have not been addressed ensuring that the law cannot relieve the problem — e.g., “including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or failure to join a necessary party.” When the defense files a motion for summary judgement, it is saying that if the parties don’t dispute the material facts of the case, then the judge can determine whether the defendant is liable based simply on the pre-trial evidence assembled, if any exists. In the case Austen v. Weatherford College, there was no such agreement. The civil case was all about the disputed facts. The college said nothing happened. Dr. Austen said otherwise. Guess what. The judge in Federal District Court agreed with the college and threw out the case based on summary judgement. In most cases, financially strapped terminated and unemployed targets go no further. But Dr. Austen filed an appeal with the federal Fifth Circuit. It was no surprise that the Appellate Court upheld (agreed with) the pro-administration ruling of summary judgement. Remember, no entity had yet considered the evidence that plaintiff Austen had put together to prove her complaint of discrimination. Austen’s attorney, Mark Robinett, at the Austin Texas firm of Brim, Arnett & Robinett. P.C., was shocked by the 5th Circuit Court’s ruling. What he found appalling was that his client’s evidence did not matter. In a general letter to the public, attorney Robinett wrote: … the Court of Appeals held that her evidence did not matter, that she had failed to present a “prima facie” case or “rebut the legitimate reasons for termination (sic nonrenewal) offered by the college. The court also holds, as if it has some basis for making a fact finding (which is a “no-no” for an appellate court) that “(t)he six serious, documented instances of misconduct from the semester after the settlement agreement were the primary reasons for termination (sic nonrenewal). Robinett, quoting the appellate court’s ruling stated What matters is not the truth of the underlying complaints and reports, however, but rather whether the college could legitimately have relied on them in deciding to terminate Austen. The college could do so. In fact, the college president, Eaton, mis-characterized Dr. Austen’s complaint to the Board. The Board never heard Austen’s perspective. The injustices Austen faced was compounded by the 5th Circuit with its pro-institutional bias that claimed evidence did not matter. Robinett concluded that the court was doing a trial jury’s job without the benefit of live testimony or assessing the credibility of the Weatherford College administrators. Read Attorney Robinett’s letter countering the assertion that Dr. Austen was not renewed for just reasons. She never got to tell her side of the story to an impartial court. Justice in America? Tags: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, abusive conduct, dismissal, justice, Karen Lopez Austen, summary judgement, Weatherford College, Workplace Bullying Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments ? OLDER ENTRIES → About the Campaign An Appeal to U.S. State Legislators This is the official home of the national grassroots legislative movement to enact the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. The HWB is the boldest proposed change to U.S. employment law in 40 years. We are a volunteer network of citizen activists working since 2002 in many states to pass the bill into law. Current discrimination and harassment laws rarely address bullying concerns. Bullying is four times more prevalent than illegal discrimination, but is still legal in the U.S. People deserve more protection against arbitrary cruelty that has nothing to do with work. Download the History of the Healthy Workplace Bill. "Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe, and which mean very little." -- Eleanor Roosevelt Contact Us | Website Feedback | Terms of Use ? 2016 Workplace Bullying Institute. All Rights Reserved.

healthyworkplacebill.org Whois

Domain Name: HEALTHYWORKPLACEBILL.ORG
Domain ID: D149616066-LROR
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com
Updated Date: 2015-12-14T18:35:37Z
Creation Date: 2007-10-31T16:40:27Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-10-31T16:40:27Z
Sponsoring Registrar: eNom, Inc.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 48
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID: f626fa2889dc94cc
Registrant Name: Gary Namie
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: PO Box 10082
Registrant City: Boise
Registrant State/Province: ID
Registrant Postal Code: 83707
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.3606566630
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: gary@garynamie.com
Admin ID: f626fa2889dc94cc
Admin Name: Gary Namie
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: PO Box 10082
Admin City: Boise
Admin State/Province: ID
Admin Postal Code: 83707
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.3606566630
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: gary@garynamie.com
Tech ID: f626fa2889dc94cc
Tech Name: Gary Namie
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: PO Box 10082
Tech City: Boise
Tech State/Province: ID
Tech Postal Code: 83707
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.3606566630
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: gary@garynamie.com
Name Server: NS2.INMOTIONHOSTING.COM
Name Server: NS1.INMOTIONHOSTING.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-07-09T19:50:12Z <<<
For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp
Access to Public Interest Registry WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to(a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy