PROJECT FINAL REPORT Workplace Incivility and Other Work

Transcription

PROJECT FINAL REPORT
Workplace Incivility and Other Work Factors:
Effects on Psychological Distress and Health
Principal Investigator
Harry S. Shannon, PhD.
McMaster University
Co-Investigators
Ted Haines, PhD.
Lilia Cortina, PhD.
McMaster University
University of Michigan
Research Team
Lauren Griffith, PhD. Candidate
Lacey Langlois, MSc. Candidate
Vasudha Gupta, BSc. Candidate
Kazi Othir Moitri, BSc. Candidate
McMaster University
McMaster University
McMaster University
McMaster University
Prepared for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers
July 3, 2007
Table of Contents
SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. IV
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 1
INCIVILITY .................................................................................................................................................. 1
GENERAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................................. 2
STUDY AIMS ............................................................................................................................................... 3
METHODS AND RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 4
STUDY POPULATION ................................................................................................................................... 4
SAMPLING: WHO WAS IN THE STUDY .......................................................................................................... 4
QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Item Selection: What questions were asked .......................................................................................... 5
Pilot Test ............................................................................................................................................... 5
MAILING ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Response Rate ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 7
DATA ENTRY .............................................................................................................................................. 7
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 8
Incivility and Sexual Harassment.......................................................................................................... 8
The Union............................................................................................................................................ 11
Work Environment .............................................................................................................................. 11
Health and Pain .................................................................................................................................. 12
Injuries and Safety .............................................................................................................................. 12
Discrimination .................................................................................................................................... 13
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ‘EXPOSURES’ AND ‘OUTCOMES’..................................................................... 13
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 19
STRENGTHS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 20
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 20
FUTURE STEPS .......................................................................................................................................... 20
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 21
TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX 1 – LETTERS OF INFORMATION ................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX 2 – REMINDER LETTERS (ONE AND TWO)................................................................. 40
APPENDIX 3 – QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................................................................... 45
ii
List of Tables
TABLE 1. QUESTIONNAIRE SCALES AND SOURCES ........................................................................................ 23
TABLE 2. RESPONSE RATES BY LOCAL.......................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 3. DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION ................... 24
TABLE 4. INCIVILITY AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION.................... 25
TABLE 5. INCIVILITY SITUATION AND INSTIGATOR CHARACTERISTICS OVERALL AND BY RELATIONSHIP TO
VICTIM................................................................................................................................................. 25
TABLE 6. SEXUAL HARASSMENT SITUATION AND INSTIGATOR CHARACTERISTICS OVERALL AND BY
RELATIONSHIP TO VICTIM ................................................................................................................... 26
TABLE 7. UNION INVOLVEMENT AND ATTITUDES OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION .......................... 26
TABLE 8. WORST PARTS OF JOB OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION ..................................................... 26
TABLE 9. SELF-RATED HEALTH AND PAIN OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION ..................................... 27
TABLE 10. INJURIES AND SAFETY OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION ................................................... 28
TABLE 11. TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION OVERALL AND BY JOB CLASSIFICATION ........................................... 29
TABLE 12. CORRELATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 29
TABLE 13. SCALE DISTRIBUTIONS ................................................................................................................. 30
TABLE 14. ADJUSTED EXPLAINED VARIANCE VALUES (%) FOR MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS, . 31
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. ANXIETY BY SUPERVISOR INCIVILITY AND COWORKER SOCIAL SUPPORT.................................... 33
FIGURE 2. DEPRESSION BY SUPERVISOR INCIVILITY AND COWORKER SOCIAL SUPPORT .............................. 34
FIGURE 3. HOSTILITY BY SUPERVISOR INCIVILITY AND COWORKER SOCIAL SUPPORT ................................. 35
iii
Summary
Background
In a previous study, we conducted 60 cross-Canada focus groups with Canada Post
Corporation (CPC) employees to identify health and safety issues in the workplace. It
was clear from the discussions that a general lack of respect was present, and that it was
linked to well-being and job satisfaction. Previous research examined these ideas by
looking at incivility, defined as discourteous behaviour or treatment. Incivility is
generally less obvious and is therefore probably more common than bullying or
harassment. Although previous research has shown a relationship between incivility and
psychological distress and well-being, incivility has not yet been explored in a Canadian
population. The current study involved a questionnaire sent to workers randomly sampled
from Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) locals across Canada.
Study Aims
The main aims of this study were: (i) to determine how common incivility was, with and
without sexual harassment among Canadian postal workers; and (ii) to determine how
much incivility contributed to psychological distress. Other questions were also explored
and tested.
Methods
CUPW is the largest bargaining unit of CPC employees, representing more than 49,000
individuals. These individuals have many job responsibilities and they can be classified
as ‘inside’, ‘outside’, and maintenance workers. Of the 212 CUPW locals across Canada,
12 were chosen for this study. The larger ones had been included in the previous focus
groups study. The smaller ones were randomly chosen from a list of locals. Up to 225
members were sampled from each local, with members from each of the three broad job
classifications. Questionnaire items were chosen based on issues that had been identified
iv
by the focus groups, and were organized into broad sections covering many topics. Since
a general lack of respect was identified as a core issue, incivility was chosen as the main
‘exposure’ of interest. The Workplace Incivility Scale was used to measure the frequency
of uncivil behaviours from supervisors, coworkers and customers over the previous year.
The questionnaire was pilot tested with a small group of union representatives, and was
then revised. Reminder letters were also mailed to increase the number of responses.
Standard statistical methods were used to answer the research questions. Different
measures were used to examine other characteristics like stress, depression, anxiety,
hostility, job demands, and job satisfaction.
Results
A total of 1,968 members were sampled and sent questionnaires. Forty-two workers were
omitted due to ineligibility, and 965 questionnaires were returned to the research team,
making the overall response rate just over 50%. The sample was mainly male and had a
mean age of 47 years. At least some incivility was quite common in the sample, with
85% of people reporting some incivility. Thirty-three percent reported incivility in the
absence of sexual harassment. The rate of incivility did not significantly differ by job
classification. In comparison to incivility, discrimination was uncommon in the sample.
One question asked if some parts of their job were worse than others. Responses
confirmed the concerns that were raised in the focus groups study. Physical strain and
safety were noted most often. Fewer than 20% of the workers felt completely safe in the
workplace. Overall, members most often rated their health as very good or excellent,
though a surprising number (20%) rated their health as either fair or poor. Certain types
of pain, specifically low back and/or buttock pain as well as neck and/or shoulder pain
were experienced at least some of the time by more than half of the workers. Almost half
v
of workers had been injured at work in the previous 12 months, although a surprising
number of individuals did not report their injury even if it required medical attention.
From the more detailed analysis, it was clear that demographic and job characteristics
were not related strongly to the measures of health. Supervisor and coworker incivility
did predict the health measures. Incivility was particularly strong in predicting burnout,
anxiety, depression and hostility. Job satisfaction was better explained by job strain and
social support than by incivility. The odds of experiencing incivility and sexual
harassment decreased with age, and the odds of incivility were lower for part-time
workers and temporary workers in comparison to full-time workers.
Discussion
As was originally found in the focus groups study, the treatment of workers by
supervisors, coworkers and customers is a problem among Canadian postal workers. At
least some instance of incivility was very common in the sample across all job classes.
The frequency of incivility was slightly higher than in a previous study of court workers
in the U.S. Incivility predicted various health outcomes after allowing other possible
factors. Specifically, incivility predicted levels of anxiety, depression, burnout and
hostility. This study does not necessarily prove that incivility causes higher levels of
anxiety, depression, and hostility. It could be that people who are more bothered by the
behaviour of their coworkers and supervisors are more anxious anyway; or there might be
something else that leads to higher levels of incivility and anxiety. In other words, if this
were the case, our results would just be coincidence. We think that this is unlikely, and
that efforts should be made to deal with the ‘exposures’ we studied.
vi
Introduction
Background
In a previous study, cross-Canada focus groups were conducted with postal workers in
response to concerns from both the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and
Canada Post Corporation (CPC) (Haines, Epp, Tomosky-Chambers, Gosselin-Paiement,
Shannon, & Blythe, 2006). The 60 focus groups were designed to gain information on
health and safety issues in the workplace from workers at both smaller and larger
worksites. The workers had a very broad understanding of health and safety in the
workplace and identified issues in the areas of physical environment, psychological and
physical distress, inadequate communication on policies and procedures, and relations
between staff, management and workers. This information was consistent with other
literature on the risks of postal work, although most research has focused on the
ergonomic and musculoskeletal strain issues associated with both sorting and carrying
mail (Wells et al., 1983; Ayoub and Smith, 1999; Blosnick et al., 1994; Derksen et al.,
1994; Parikh et al., 1997; Stalhammar et al., 1996; Louhevaara et al., 1990). From the
focus group discussions it was clear that a general lack of respect was present, and that it
was linked to overall well-being and job satisfaction.
Incivility
Previous research by Cortina et al. (2001) examined these ideas by looking at incivility
among workers in the United States federal court system. Cortina et al found that 71% of
the employees reported the experience of at least some incivility in the 5 years before the
study. Incivility can be broadly defined as discourteous behaviour or treatment, and
includes, for example having someone talk about you behind your back, being ignored or
excluded, and condescension. The concept is distinct from bullying in that it is generally
1
less obvious. As a result, it is potentially more common than bullying or harassment
because it is not necessarily overt behaviour. Incivility is postulated to be associated with
several negative outcomes, and some researchers suggest that it could lead to more severe
violence (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Previous research has shown a relationship
between incivility and psychological distress and well-being (Cortina et al., 2001). The
current study was designed to look at incivility in Canadian postal workers, and to see
how it was related to several health and psychological outcomes. Although other
researchers have looked at incivility in workers, we believe this study is the first to
examine incivility among postal workers.
General Approach
For the current study workers were randomly sampled from 12 CPC workplaces across
Canada. All sampled workers were sent questionnaires to measure multiple work
‘exposures’ (including incivility) and outcomes (e.g., burnout). The analysis looked at
which exposures predicted various outcomes.
2
Study Aims
As set out in the research proposal, the main aims of this study were to determine:
the magnitude of incivility, with and without associated sexual harassment,
among Canadian postal workers;
the extent to which incivility contributed to psychological distress.
In addition, secondary questions were explored:
the effects of incivility on job satisfaction;
the effects of sexual harassment on job satisfaction;
the impact of various work organization factors (job control, job demands, social
support at work) on distress and satisfaction;
the demographic and job factors associated with the experience of incivility and
sexual harassment;
the characteristics of instigators of incivility and sexual harassment;
how distinct the measure of incivility is from measures of bullying and sexual
harassment.
Further, we hypothesized that:
incivility and bullying would only be moderately related;
incivility would predict health outcomes even after allowing for work factors such
as job strain;
social support and coping skills would help to reduce any effects of incivility on
health.
3
Methods and Results
Study Population
Unionized Canada Post Corporation (CPC) employees are represented by four bargaining
units in four different unions. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) is the
largest bargaining unit with more than 49,000 employees. These employees are
responsible for mail processing and handling (‘inside’ workers), mail collection and
distribution (‘outside’ workers), and maintenance. There are 212 CUPW locals of varying
size across Canada. A total of 12 sites were chosen for the study. Nine of these sites were
chosen because of their involvement in the earlier focus group study, while three sites
were chosen for their small membership size. CUPW members in each of the three broad
job classifications (inside, outside, maintenance) were recruited for the study.
Sampling: Who was in the study
In addition to the nine sites that had participated in the earlier focus group study
(Edmonton, Vancouver, Hamilton, Toronto, Welland, Sudbury, Montreal, Quebec City,
St. John’s), three sites were randomly selected from the 166 locals with fewer than 100
members (Cumberland, Haut-de-Lac, Terrace). We had three Ontario locals (Hamilton,
Toronto, Welland) since almost one-third of CPC employees work in Ontario. A CUPW
membership list was obtained for each of the 12 locals, and workers were randomly
selected, stratified by job classification. The aim was to have up to 225 workers from
each local, with 100 inside, 100 outside and 25 maintenance workers. This was to ensure
that there were enough workers from within each job class to allow meaningful results to
be obtained for each group. In smaller locals all members were asked to take part in the
study.
4
Questionnaire
Item Selection: What questions were asked
Questionnaire items were chosen based on issues that had been identified by the focus
groups. These included physical environment, psychological and physical distress,
inadequate communication about policies and procedures, and relations between staff,
management and workers. Questions were divided into broad sections covering the job,
union, work environment, health and feelings, workplace situations, injuries and safety,
and demographics. Since a general lack of respect was identified as a core issue, incivility
was chosen as the main ‘exposure’ of interest. The Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS)
measures the frequency of uncivil behaviours (disrespectful, condescending, rude) from
supervisors, coworkers and customers over the previous year (Cortina et al., 2001).
Questions were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from never to most of the time. We
suspected that incivility would be related to several psychological and health outcomes,
so information on job satisfaction, back and shoulder pain, distress, anxiety, burnout,
depression, stress, and hostility was also collected. Other exposures of interest included
the job content items (job control, job demands, and social support), sexual harassment,
and bullying. A list of all scales used in this project, as well as their sources, is provided
in Table 1.
Pilot Test
The questionnaire was pilot-tested with a group of ten postal workers. The group was
composed of union representatives who willingly agreed to participate. The pilot test was
intended to ensure that the questions were understandable, and that the questionnaire was
not too long. Respondents had the opportunity to give feedback on the questionnaire
about items that were confusing, redundant or inappropriate, as well as to comment on
5
topics that they thought were missing. Following the pilot test, the questionnaire was
revised and shortened. The final questionnaire was then translated into French, and backtranslated to English to ensure a proper translation. The questionnaire is shown in the
Appendix.
Mailing
Workers’ home addresses were obtained from CUPW and sampled workers were sent
packages that included: (1) an information letter from the research team, (2) a blank
questionnaire, and (3) a postage-paid return envelope. In addition, union members in
good standing (i.e., those expressing interest in the union and with up-to-date union dues)
were also sent a letter from CUPW indicating its support for the project. Copies of all
letters are provided in the Appendix.
To maximize response from the sampled workers, the ‘Dillman approach’ was used. This
method involves three mail outs: a first mail out to all sampled workers, a second
identical mail out with the addition of a reminder letter, and a final mail out. Since all
questionnaires were anonymous we could not know which individuals had completed
questionnaires after the first and second mail outs. Therefore, unless individuals
contacted the research team saying that they had completed the questionnaire, or mail
was returned to sender, all sampled individuals were sent the questionnaire three times.
Completed questionnaires were returned directly to the research team so that the
respondents could feel more comfortable replying honestly to all questions without fear
of job consequences.
6
Response Rate
From the twelve locals, a total of 1,968 workers were sampled and sent questionnaires.
After omitting ineligible workers because they had moved, retired, died, or gone on
medical leave (42), the valid sample size was 1,926. Over three mailings, 965
questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of just over 50% (965/1,926). The
response rates differed slightly by local, ranging from a low of 38% in Vancouver to a
high of 71% in Terrace (see Table 2).
Demographic Characteristics
The majority of the respondents were male (60%), and the mean age was 47 years
(SD=81). Most were married (70%), and had worked for CPC for a mean of 18 years
(SD=10). Table 3 provides a summary of the demographic and job characteristics. All
demographic and job characteristics differed significantly by job classification (inside,
outside, and maintenance). Maintenance workers, for example, were more likely to be
male, married, and working full-time in comparison to inside and outside workers.
Data Entry
All questionnaires were hand entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet by two students
hired for the project. The students entered responses as they were recorded on the
questionnaire without extra interpretation, and also coded if the data was missing or if the
field was not applicable to ensure completeness of entry. Responses to open-ended fields
in French were first entered exactly as written, and then translated to English by one of
the bilingual students.
1
SD=Standard Deviation (a measure of the spread of the data, small standard deviations
indicate minimal variability in the sample)
7
Descriptive Analysis
Scales were coded according to methods used by other authors. See Table 1 for a
description of each scale used and its section in the questionnaire. For the most part,
scales were calculated as mean scores of the scale items. Frequencies and/or means of
demographic and/or work characteristics were obtained. This was done for all
respondents combined, and for each job classification separately.
Probability values (p-values) are also provided where appropriate. Sometimes,
comparisons may appear to show differences or relationships, but they could have
occurred just by chance. For statistical testing, p-values of less than 0.05 are generally
interpreted as ‘significant’, meaning that the result would be expected less than 1 time in
20 (5%) if it were due to chance alone. Therefore, if a p-value is less than 0.05, it means
that it is unlikely that the result occurred by chance. Asterisks (*) have been used to make
the tables easier to interpret. The more asterisks, the less likely the results are due to
chance. In other words, more asterisks mean that the evidence for the association is
stronger.
Incivility and Sexual Harassment
Research question: What is the magnitude of reported incivility, with and without
associated sexual harassment, among Canadian postal workers?
Incivility was quite common in the sample, with 85% of people experiencing at least
some incivility (i.e., any incivility from supervisors, coworkers or customers), and 33%
of people experiencing incivility but not sexual harassment. Only 13% of respondents
experienced neither incivility nor sexual harassment. The experience of any incivility did
not significantly differ by job classification; but as would be expected, customer incivility
8
was significantly more common among outside workers (55%), although it was also
reported by both inside (26%) and maintenance workers (33%). Table 4 provides a
summary of the experience of incivility and sexual harassment overall and by job class.
Both supervisor and coworker incivility were less likely in temporary workers than in
full-time workers. There were no demographic characteristics that were more common
among those experiencing any type of incivility. The experience of both incivility and
sexual harassment was also related to disability, defined as being on modified work
(either currently or previously). Those on modified work were more likely to experience
both incivility and sexual harassment (p<0.001 for both, results not shown). Those on
modified work were more likely to experience gender harassment (p<0.001) and
unwanted sexual attention (p<0.001) as compared to individuals not on modified work.
The experience of both incivility and sexual harassment did not differ by ethnicity
(Caucasian vs. other) (p=0.31 and p=0.05 respectively) as incivility and sexual
harassment were common among both groups of workers. Incivility was experienced by
86% of Caucasians, 78% of those classified as another ethnicity, and 86% of those for
whom ethnicity could not be coded. Similarly, sexual harassment was experienced by
57% of Caucasians, 57% of those classified as another ethnicity, and 49% of those for
whom ethnicity could not be coded.
Research question: what are the characteristics of instigators of incivility and sexual
harassment?
Respondents were asked to think about the one incivility situation that bothered them the
most, and to answer additional questions about the incident. Where characteristics of
9
incivility instigators were reported, the instigators tended to be male (58%) and were
most often supervisors (44%). Since there is no available information on the actual
characteristics of supervisors, for example the proportion who are men, we cannot
conclude that men are more likely to be instigators of incivility. In fact, it could just be
that because there are more male supervisors, the instigators are more likely to be male.
We do however know that roughly 60% of workers are male, and therefore when looking
at coworker incivility, we would expect 60% of the perpetrators to be male if there was
no difference in the gender of the perpetrators. In fact, about 71% of the coworker
perpetrators are male for incivility against male victims, and only 44% were males for
incivility against female victims. Although the proportion of incivility from males
directed at males is higher than would be expected, we must be careful when interpreting
these results. Since respondents were asked to report on only one situation, it could be
that the males were more bothered by coworkers’ incivility, while women were more
bothered by supervisors’ incivility. Respondents were also asked to rate how much the
situation bothered them on a 5-point scale ranging from Not at all (1) to Extremely (5).
The mean score was 3.4 (SD=1.2), indicating that most respondents were bothered by the
incident at least somewhat. More than half (51%) of the incidents lasted for more than
one week, with 25% of the incidents lasting more than six months. Incidents lasting more
than a month were more likely to be instigated by supervisors or coworkers, as only 7.4%
of the customer instigated incivility events lasted a month or more. A summary of the
characteristics of the incivility instigators and situations is provided in Table 5.
Respondents were also asked to provide additional information on the sexual harassment
incident that most bothered them. Most of the instigators of sexual harassment were male
10
(63%), and coworkers (62%). Similar to the incivility situations, 45% of the situations
lasted for more than one week, with 22% of the incidents lasting more than six months.
As with incivility, the longer situations tended to be instigated by supervisors or
coworkers as opposed to customers. Among people describing an incident, 82% did not
report the situation. A summary of the sexual harassment situations is provided in Table
6.
The Union
Only a minority of the workers had ever previously held a position in the union (23%),
but almost one-third of the respondents had filed a grievance through the union in the
previous 12 months (30%). When asked to rate their satisfaction with the union on a scale
ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5) the mean was 2.8 (SD=1.1), or
slightly in the direction of dissatisfaction. Respondents were asked to rate unionmanagement relations on a scale ranging from very hostile (1) to very friendly (5). The
mean score was 2.6, which was slightly in the direction of hostile. Views of the union
representatives were more positive, with a mean of 3.2 (SD=1.1) in the direction of very
reliable (5) when things got tough as opposed to not at all reliable (1). See Table 7 for a
summary of union involvement and attitudes.
Work Environment
If there were certain parts of their job that were worse than others, respondents were
asked to indicate what these were. More than half (52%) of respondents made some
statement on this. Most often the comments centered on physical complaints like heavy
lifting of bins and mail (specifically flyers) as well as safety (38%). Respondents also
discussed the supervisors/management, union, coworkers, dealing with customers/public,
11
employee morale, and weather/walking conditions. Complaints included comments of
supervisor incompetence, lack of caring on the part of management, and rudeness from
customers. Some reporting differed by job classification with outside workers more likely
to write about time pressures/burdens (29% of outside workers) as well as weather and
walking conditions (18% of outside workers). Maintenance workers were more likely to
write about their job in general (42%). A summary of the frequency of responses in each
broad category is provided in Table 8.
Health and Pain
More individuals in this sample rated their health as either fair or poor compared to the
general Canadian population aged 12 and older (20% in comparison to 11%). Still,
respondents most often rated their health as very good (32%) or excellent (14%).
However, certain types of pain were reported. Specifically, low back and/or buttock pain
as well as neck and/or shoulder pain were experienced at least some of the time by 59%
and 61% of workers respectively. Table 9 provides a summary of self-rated health and
pain overall and by job classification. The frequencies of all types of pain differed
significantly by job classification with outside workers experiencing more low back
and/or buttock pain as well as neck and/or shoulder pain.
Injuries and Safety
Almost half (43%) of the respondents had been injured at work in the previous 12
months, and 13% of these people did not report their injury. Workers’ compensation
claims were filed for only 53% of these injuries, though little information is provided on
the injury severity. However, the injuries most often did require medical attention (70%).
Despite this, very few of the respondents were currently on modified work (9%), though
12
more had been on modified work in the previous 12 months (13%). When asked whether
management does everything possible to prevent accidents in the workplace, 36% of the
respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Only 18% reported that there was nothing
about the job that made them fear for their safety at work, though these numbers differed
by job classification, with fewer outside workers reporting that they had no fear for their
safety (12%). A summary of this section is provided in Table 10.
Discrimination
Rates of direct discrimination were fairly low. The highest rate of discrimination (8%)
was reported for discrimination based on union involvement. Of the 224 people who
indicated that they had held a union position at some time, 26% reported discrimination
on the basis of union involvement. The majority of respondents (69%) reported that they
had not been subject to any discrimination based on personal characteristics like age,
gender, or race. In comparison to inside and outside workers, discrimination based on
gender and disability were reported less often among maintenance workers (p=0.004 and
p=0.003 respectively). Women were far more likely to report discrimination based on
gender (8% (31) of females, 2% (10) for males). A summary of the types of
discrimination experienced is provided in Table 11.
Relationships between ‘Exposures’ and ‘Outcomes’
Correlation coefficients were examined to see how incivility was related to both bullying
and sexual harassment. Correlations measure the degree of association between two
variables. A correlation value has two components, a sign (either positive or negative)
and a numeric value (ranging from 0.0 to 1.0). Positive correlations indicate that if one
variable increases the other does too, while a negative correlation indicates that an
13
increase in one is related to a decrease in the other. A correlation of 0.0 means that the
two variables are not related at all (i.e., knowing the value of one provides absolutely no
guidance as to what the other is), while a correlation of 1.0 is a perfect relationship
indicating that there is an exact straight line relationship between the two variables. One
reason to examine the correlation coefficients was to see if incivility measured different
concepts than bullying and sexual harassment.
We determined how much of the variation in the outcomes could be explained by
incivility, job content, social support, work harassment (bullying), and sexual harassment
using a statistical technique called multiple linear regression. This determines which
‘exposure’ (predictor) variables can be used to predict another variable; for example, a
predictor helps to explain why some people have high scores of an outcome and why
others have low scores. We can measures how strong a predictor is by calculating how
much of the variability in the outcome it explains. The proportion of variability explained
is known as R2. As we add predictor variables, R2 will also increase. So we have looked
at how much is added to R2 when we add Incivility to other predictors such as Age, Sex,
etc.
Some outcomes do not have scores; they simply show whether or not something
happened, or is present. For example, we could look at whether a worker experienced
incivility or not. This needs a different statistical method, known as logistic regression. It
does not give R2; instead we see how strong a predictor is by looking at the ‘odds ratio’.
An odds ratio of 1 indicates equal odds in both groups, while an odds ratio below 1
indicates decreased risk, and an odds ratio greater than 1 indicates an increase in risk. For
example, we could look at the effect of seat belt use on fatalities from car crashes by
14
taking a sample of car crashes and then determine how many of those people were
wearing a seat belt. The outcome of car fatalities would be related to seatbelt use with an
odds ratio of less than 1 because seat belts are protective against fatalities in car crashes.
If the odds ratio was 0.5 for example, it could be interpreted as follows: among seatbelt
users who have a crash, the odds of a fatalities are 0.5 times (half) the odds of a fatality
among those who do not use seatbelts.
Multiple regressions were developed to explain the 14 examined outcomes. Each one
started with several predictors: job characteristics (job classification, shift type, and
employment type) and demographic variables (age and gender). These predictors did not
explain the outcomes well: the (adjusted) R2 values were small, ranging from 0% for
anxiety to 8% for organizational commitment. A summary of the R2 values is provided in
Table 14. We now discuss these results in relation to our research questions.
Research question: To what extent does the experience of incivility contribute to
psychological distress?
The addition of the supervisor and coworker incivility items to the basic predictors
increased R2 for all outcomes, with the greatest gains for the Threat subscale (gain of
28%). Incivility from supervisors was a stronger predictor than incivility from coworkers.
After controlling for both job strain items and social support, incivility still explained
additional variance for several outcomes – burnout, anxiety, depression and hostility –
with increases ranging from 7% for burnout and depression to 10% for hostility. We also
did analysis to see if social support would buffer the effects of incivility on health.
Graphs of these results are shown in Figures 1-3. As social support from coworkers
15
increases, incivility from supervisors has less of an effect on anxiety, depression and
hostility. This means that the effect of low social support and high incivility together is
greater than the sum of the two separate effects. In other words, when someone
experienced both low social support and high supervisor incivility, they were more likely
to have particularly high levels of anxiety and depression, and also higher levels of
hostility. We did not find this for other outcomes, i.e., social support did not buffer the
effects of incivility for those outcomes.
Research question: What is the effect on distress and satisfaction of the following work
organization factors: decision latitude, job demands, social support at work?
In comparison to the prediction from incivility, a model with only demographic
characteristics and the job strain items (decision latitude, job demands) was better able to
predict pressure (R2=33%; ΔR2=13%)2, while the social support items (in combination
with demographic factors) were better able to predict organizational commitment
(R2=35%; ΔR2=11%) and job satisfaction (R2=27%; ΔR2=7%). Demographic and job
factors were also examined for their relationship with job satisfaction. Older people
tended to be more satisfied than young ones, as did part-time and temporary workers in
comparison to full-time employees.
2
ΔR2 refers to the difference in R2
16
Research question: What is the effect of incivility and sexual harassment on job
satisfaction?
Adding incivility items to the basic model explained a total of 24% of the variation in job
satisfaction. However, after controlling for job strain and social support, incivility only
added 2% to the R2 for job satisfaction. This means that job satisfaction is better
explained by job strain and social support than by incivility. This is not surprising as
incivility and social support are related notions. Although the three types of sexual
harassment examined (gender harassment, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention)
explain only 10% of the variation in job satisfaction after accounting for demographics,
this is a significant amount considering the number of factors that contribute to job
satisfaction. What may be happening is that people like or dislike their job, and this is not
affected by how other people at work behave.
Research question: How distinct is the measure of incivility from bullying and sexual
harassment?
Bullying is related to incivility, and although we expected that correlations would only be
modest, bullying had fairly high correlations with both supervisor and coworker incivility
(0.72 and 0.71 respectively) (see Table 12). Incivility does however seem to be
measuring a somewhat different concept. If incivility and bullying were measuring the
same concepts, we would not expect incivility to explain the outcomes much after
accounting for bullying. Yet when incivility is added to a model that controls for the
basic characteristics as well as bullying, it still adds up to 7% to the explained variance.
Incivility and sexual harassment are also modestly correlated, with correlation values
17
ranging from 0.14 to 0.44. The sexual harassment score was a poorer predictor of all
outcomes than incivility, indicating that they are indeed measuring different concepts.
Research question: What demographic and job factors are associated with the experience
of incivility and sexual harassment?
The odds of experiencing any incivility decrease with age; the odds ratio associated with
a ten-year increase in age is 0.67. In comparison to full-time employees, the odds of
incivility are lower among those who are part-time (OR= 0.51) or temporary workers
(OR=0.28). Other demographic and job factors like gender, shift type and job class were
not significantly associated with incivility. Experiencing sexual harassment was also
significantly related to age – the odds ratio associated with a ten-year increase in age is
0.59. Experiencing sexual harassment was not related to other factors.
18
Discussion
Conclusions
As was originally found in the focus groups study, the treatment of workers by
supervisors, coworkers and customers is a problem among Canadian postal workers. At
least some instance of incivility was very common across all job classes. The prevalence
of incivility (85%) was slightly higher than that found by Cortina et al (2001). While they
reported that 71% of their sample of US federal court system employees experienced at
least some incivility, their study asked about the previous five years, while we asked
about the previous year. One would expect incivility to be less common over a shorter
period, but we found the opposite.
Incivility helped to explain various health outcomes after controlling for demographic
and job characteristics as well as job strain and social support. Specifically, incivility
added to the explained variance beyond these factors for anxiety, depression, burnout and
hostility. Demographic and job characteristics were poor predictors of any of the health
and psychological outcomes.
Information on the worst parts of jobs provided confirmation of some of the concerns
raised in the focus groups study. Areas of concern included the physical aspects of the job
(as evidenced through the prevalence of various types of pain) as well as treatment from
supervisors, coworkers and customers. Outside workers also mentioned time pressures
and burden as well as concerns about weather and walking conditions.
19
Strengths of the Study
The sample size for this study was quite large, with a good representation of workers
from multiple job classes. This is a strength because the representativeness allows for a
better understanding of incivility within CPC. The fact that workers were sampled from
both large and small locals helps to demonstrate that the experience of incivility is not
isolated to just one or the other. The involvement of the union also strengthened the
project as they encouraged their members to complete the questionnaire. In addition, the
fact that the questionnaires were submitted directly to the research team allowed
respondents to be open in their answers without fear of any repercussions. This study also
provides needed information on incivility in the working population, and we believe it is
the first study to examine incivility in a Canadian sample
Limitations of the Study
This study does not necessarily prove that incivility causes higher levels of anxiety,
depression, and hostility. It could be that people who are more bothered by the behaviour
of their coworkers and supervisors are more anxious anyway; or there might be
something else that leads to higher levels of incivility and anxiety. In other words, if this
were the case, our results would just be coincidence. We think that this is unlikely, and
that efforts should be made to deal with the ‘exposures’ we studied.
Future Steps
The current research indicates the importance of incivility in the workforce. Not only is at
least some incivility fairly common, but it is related to important outcomes like anxiety,
depression, hostility and burnout. As a result, incivility is certainly an issue that must be
addressed.
20
References
Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in
the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Ayoub, M.M., & Smith, J.L. (1999). Evaluation of satchels for postal leter carriers.
International Journal of Industrial Economics, 23, 269-279.
Balfour, D.L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational Commitment, Antecedents and
Outcomes in Public Organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review,
19(3), 256-277.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M. (1994). Sex Differences in Covert
Aggression Among Adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27-33.
Blosnick, D.S., Gerber, A., Sebesta, D., Johnson, S., & Mecham, W. (1994). Effect of
mailbag design on musculoskeletal fatigue and metabolic load. Human Factors,
36(2), 210-218.
Canadian Policy Research Networks (2001). Ekos Changing Employment Relationships
Survey Questionnaire. Accessed May 25, 2007 from:
http://www.cprn.ca/doc.cfm?doc=762&l=en.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H., & Langhout, R.D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and Impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
6(1), 64-80.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufell, W.B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499512.
Derksen, J.C., Van Riel, M.P., Van Wingerden, J.P., Snijders, C.J. (1994). A comparison
of working postures of parcel sorters using three different working methods.
Ergonomics, 27(2), 299-309.
Derogatis, L.R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: an
introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595-605.
Donovan, M.A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L.J. (1998). The Perceptions of Fair
Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and Validation of a Measure of
Interpersonal Treatment in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5),
683-692.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990, March). Assessing strategies for coping with harassment: A
theoretical/empirical approach. Paper presented at the midwinter conference of
the Association for Women in Psychology, Tempe, AZ.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment:
Theoretical & psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17,
425-427.
21
Haines, T., Epp, T., Tomosky-Chambers, K., Gosselin-Paiement, H., Shannon, H.,
Blythe, J. (2006, April). Health Impact of Change in Work Organization and
Workplace Technology in a Large Communications Company: A
Qualitative Study. Presentation at Work Stress and Health conference,
American Psychological Association, Miami, FL.
Karasek, R. (1985). Job Content Questionnaire and User’s Guide, Revision 1.12.
Columbia University.
Kristensen, T.S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K.B. (2005). The Copenhagen
Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress,
19(3), 192-207.
Louhevaara, V., Hakola, T. & Ollila, H. (1990). Physical work and starin involved in
manual sosrting of postal parcels. Ergonomics, 33(9), 1115-1130.
Lowe, G., & Northcott, H. (1986). Under Pressure: A Study of Job Stress. Toronto:
Garamond Press.
Parikh, A.G., Schulze, L.J.H., Chen, J., & Cleveland, T. (1997). Maximum acceptable
weight of asymmetrical lifting and lowering of postal sacks. International Journal
of Industrial Economics, 19, 1-7.
Stalhammar, H.R., Louhevaara, V., & Troup, J.D.G. (1996). Rating acceptable loads in
manual sorting of postal parcels. Ergonomics, 39(10)L 1214-1220.
Stanton, J.M., Balzer, W.K., Smith, P.C., Parra, L.F., & Ironson, G. (2001). A General
Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 61(5), 866-888.
Swan, S. (1997). Explaining the job-related and psychological consequences of sexual
harassment in the workplace: A contextual model. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Wells, J.A., Zipp, J.F., Schuette, P.T., & McElenry, J. (1983). Musculoskeletal disorders
among letter carriers. A comparison of weight carrying, walking and sedentary
occupations. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 25(11), 814-820.
Wright, T.A., & Wright, V.P. (2001). Fact or fiction: the role of (in)civility in
organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 168-170.
22
Tables
Table 1. Questionnaire Scales and Sources
Scale
Section A: Your Job
Job Content
Questionnaire (A6)
Description
Measures job strain based on job control (skill
discretion (f-h,j,l,p) and decision authority (i,k,m))
and job demands (a-e). Also measures social support
(q-x), as it is thought to have a buffering effect.
Section B. Your Union
Section C. Work Environment
Work Environment
Measures organizational commitment, and the views
Questions (C1a-j)
workers have of the company.
Turnover Intent (C1k-l)
Examines whether the worker intends to find a new
job in the coming year.
Job Satisfaction (C1m-o) Measures job satisfaction.
Stress in General Scale
Measures stress according to two subscales: threat
(C2)
(a,e,d) and pressure (b,c,f).
Oldenburg Burnout
Measures burnout according to two subscales:
Inventory (C3)
disengagement (a,c,e,h,j,l)and exhaustion (b,d,f,g,i,k).
Section D. Your Health and Feelings
Copenhagen Burnout
Measures overall burnout.
Inventory (D3)
Brief Symptom
Measures anxiety (a,d,g,k,m,p), depression (c,f,I,j,n,q)
Inventory (D4)
and hostility (b,e,h,l,o).
Section E. Situations at Your Workplace
Measures the way employees feel they are being
Perceptions of Fair
treated in terms of procedures and results.
Interpersonal Treatment
Scale (E1)
Workplace Incivility
Measures uncivil behaviour from supervisors (a-g),
Scale (E2)
coworkers (h-n) and customers (o-s).
Perpetrator Power Scale
Examines the power that perpetrators have over
(E3c)
employees in terms of things like pay, reputation and
relaitionships.
Coping with Harassment Examines how the worker copes with the situation
Scale (E3f)
(e.g., passive or assertive)
Work Harassment Scale
Measures bullying behaviours from coworkers and
(E4)
supervisors.
Sexual Experiences
Measures three forms of sexual harassment: gender
Questionnaire (E6)
harassment (a,b,c,h,o), sexual coercion (j,m), and
unwanted sexual attention (d,e,f,g,i,k,l,n).
Section F: Injuries and Safety
Employemnt
Several questions taken from the questionnaire to
Relationships Survey
determine the prevalence of injuries and what is done
Questionnaire (F1, F3-F4) about them.
Section G: Demographic Information
-
Source
Karasek, 1985
McMaster Hospital
Staff Survey
Balfour & Wechsler,
1996
Michigan Org.
Assessment
Questionnaire
Stanton et al., 1992
Demerouti et al.,
2001
Kristensen et al.,
2005
Derogatis &
Melisaratos, 1983
Donovan et al., 1998
Cortina et al., 2001
Swan, 1997
Fitzgerald, 1990
Bjorkqvist et al.,
1992
Fitzgerald et al.,
1988
Canadian Policy
Research Networks,
2001
-
23
Table 2. Response Rates by Local
Local
Sent (#)
Cumberland
33
Edmonton
225
Hamilton
225
Haut-de-Lac
46
Montreal
225
Quebec
218
St. John’s
208
Sudbury
202
Terrace
38
Toronto
225
Vancouver
225
Welland
98
None Listed
Overall
1968
a
Accounting for excluded individuals
Returned (#)
17
119
106
18
92
116
114
107
27
98
81
63
7
965
Response Rate (%)a
55
56
49
41
43
55
56
55
71
45
38
66
50
Table 3. Demographic and Job Characteristics Overall and by Job Classification
Characteristic
Overall
n=965 (%)
Worker Job Classifciation
Inside
Outside
Maintenance
n=362 (%)
n=511 (%)
n=81 (%)
44
65
98
47 (9)
47 (8)
50 (7)
Gender (% Male) **
60
Age (Mean (SD)) *
47 (8)
Marital Status (years) *
83
71
67
70
Married/partner
4
16
19
16
Single
0
1
1
1
Widowed
10
12
12
12
Separated/Divorced
Length Employed (years) *
Mean (SD)
18 (10)
17 (10)
19 (10)
22 (9)
Employment Status **
Full-Time
75
62
81
99
Part-Time
15
24
11
1
Temporary
9
13
8
0
Shift Type **
51
96
40
70
Day
30
2
31
15
Afternoon
17
1
25
11
Night
0
0
2
1
Combination
Local
21
12
11
12
Edmonton
12
9
7
8
Vancouver
19
8
11
10
Hamilton
10
10
8
9
Toronto
0
7
1
4
Welland
3
10
13
11
Sudbury
15
10
8
10
Montreal
10
10
13
11
Quebec City
10
9
16
12
St. John’s
1
15
12
13
Other
Ethnicity **
White
57
53
61
48
Other
5
8
3
11
Can’t code
38
40
36
41
*Differences between job classes significant p<0.05 (Expected less than 1 time in 20 if occurring by chance)
**Differences between job classes significant p<0.001 (Expected less than 1 time in 1000 if occurring by chance)
24
Table 4. Incivility and Sexual Harassment Overall and by Job Classification
Characteristic
Overall
n=965 (%)
Worker Job Classification
Inside
Outside
Maintenance
n=362 (%)
n=511 (%)
n=81 (%)
Incivility
86
87
83
85
Any *
84
73
74
74
Supervisor
75
70
70
70
Coworker
33
55
26
44
Customer **
Sexual Harassment
44
55
55
54
Any
41
52
51
51
Gender Harassment
0
3
1
2
Sexual Coercion
29
36
38
36
Unwanted Attention
Neither
13
14
12
14
Table 5. Incivility Situation and Instigator Characteristics Overall and by Relationship to
Victim
Characteristic
Overall
n=813 (%)
Gender (% Male)
How much the situation bothered victim
Mean (SD) [RANGE 1-5]
How long the situation lasted
One-time event
Less than one week
Several weeks
One to six months
More than six months
Coping with Harassment
Passive [Mean (SD)] [RANGE 1-2]
Active [Mean (SD)] [RANGE 1-2]
Satisfaction with Outcome
58
Instigator Relationship to Victim
Supervis.
Coworker
Customer
n=355 (%)
n=292 (%)
n=106 (%)
66
68
56
3 (1)
4 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
12 (4)
14 (4)
11 (3)
9 (3)
35
14
16
10
25
31
14
16
11
28
29
13
18
11
29
68
15
10
3
5
2 (0.3)
1 (0.3)
2 (0.3)
1 (0.3)
2 (0.3)
1 (0.3)
2 (0.3)
1 (0.2)
3 (1)
2 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
25
Table 6. Sexual Harassment Situation and Instigator Characteristics Overall and by
Relationship to Victim
Characteristic
Overall
n=514 (%)
Gender (% Male)
How much the situation bothered victim
How long the situation lasted
One-time event
Less than one week
Several weeks
One to six months
More than six months
Situation Reported
Satisfaction with Outcome
63
Instigator Relationship to Victim
Supervis.
Coworker
Customer
n=94 (%)
n=318 (%)
n=30 (%)
67
73
73
3 (1)
4 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
43
13
14
9
22
18
30
11
15
14
29
37
43
14
14
7
22
17
61
6
24
3
6
33
3 (1)
2 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
Table 7. Union Involvement and Attitudes Overall and by Job Classification
Characteristic
Overall
n=965 (%)
Inside
Outside
Maintenance
n=362 (%)
n=511 (%)
n=81 (%)
22
24
27
38
25
20
Ever held a position in the union
23
Filed a grievance through union in previous
30
12 months **
Union-Management Relations
3 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
Reliability of union representative
Mean (SD) [RANGE 1-5] *
3 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
Satisfaction with union
Mean (SD) [RANGE 1-5] **
3 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
2 (1)
Table 8. Worst Parts of Job Overall and by Job Classification
Category
Overall
n=499 (%)
Inside
Outside
Mainten.
n=169 (%)
n=286 (%)
n=38 (%)
Physical
38
39
40
18
Supervisors/Management
30
36
26
37
Time Pressure/Burden *
26
25
29
3
Job in General *
17
18
13
42
Weather/Walking Conditions **
11
1
18
0
Coworkers *
10
15
7
13
Customers/Public
6
7
6
3
Employee Morale *
4
7
2
3
Union
2
3
2
0
Other
7
7
8
5
26
Table 9. Self-Rated Health and Pain Overall and by Job Classification
Characteristic
Overall
n=965 (%)
Inside
Outside
Maintenance
n=362 (%)
n=511 (%)
n=81 (%)
Self-Rated Health
10
17
12
14
Excellent
33
35
28
32
Very Good
40
31
37
34
Good
15
14
20
16
Fair
3
4
4
4
Poor
Pain in Previous Week
Low back and/or buttock pain *
33
20
25
23
None of the time
22
18
19
19
A little of the time
23
32
32
31
Some of the time
21
21
17
20
Most of the time
1
10
7
8
All of the time
Neck and/or shoulder pain *
34
19
24
22
None of the time
23
17
16
17
26
31
31
31
Some of the time
16
23
18
20
Most of the time
1
11
11
10
All of the time
Other pain **
42
18
23
22
None of the time
11
9
7
9
28
30
30
29
Some of the time
13
23
27
23
Most of the time
6
21
14
17
All of the time
27
Table 10. Injuries and Safety Overall and by Job Classification
Characteristic
Injuries at work in previous year *
Reported to work?
Workers compensation claim? *
Required:
medical attention?
time off? *
change in job assignment?
Modified work
Currently
In previous 12 months
No
Not Answered
Management does everything possible to
prevent accidents
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly Agree
Which of following causes most fear for
your safety?
Customers
Other non-employees
Supervisors or managers
People who report to you
Other employees
Vehicle accidents
Equipment accidents
Dogs
Other
NO Fear for Safety
Not Answered
Overall
n=965 (%)
43
87
53
Inside
Outside
Maintenance
n=362 (%)
n=511 (%)
n=81 (%)
32
48
39
82
90
84
52
58
43
70
48
32
64
38
34
72
54
33
71
40
11
9
13
53
24
12
7
54
27
9
18
51
22
0
6
63
31
13
25
26
27
9
15
23
28
25
9
13
26
25
27
9
6
25
19
43
6
4
0.4
7
0
5
7
16
15
15
18
14
4
0
7
0
7
1
27
2
12
26
15
5
1
6
0
3
11
6
26
18
12
13
0
0
10
0
10
5
24
1
11
21
16
28
Table 11. Types of Discrimination Overall and by Job Classification
Type of Discrimination
Overall
n=965 (%)
Inside
Outside
Maintenance
n=362 (%)
n=511 (%)
n=81 (%)
5
5
5
7
3
0
7
1
3
4
1
3
11
5
4
1
1
3
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
9
10
6
7
65
71
68
Age
5
Gender *
4
Race *
2
Ethnicity *
2
Disability *
7
Sexual Orientation
1
Religion
1
Language
1
Political Belief
1
Union Involvement
8
Other *
8
None of the above
69
a
Note: More than one response possible.
Table 12. Correlations
Scale
Supervisor Incivility
Coworker Incivility
Customer Incivility
0.21*
0.14*
0.28*
Job Demands
-0.01
-0.02
-0.04
Skill Discretion
-0.02
-0.09*
-0.20*
Decision Authority
-0.10*
-0.27*
-0.54*
Support (Supervis.)
-0.11*
-0.49*
-0.27*
Support (Cowork.)
Org. Commitment
-0.45*
-0.24*
-0.20*
Turnover
0.30*
0.17*
0.16*
Job Satisfaction
-0.43*
-0.28*
-0.17*
Threat
0.56*
0.39*
0.21*
Pressure
0.43*
0.29*
0.24*
Disengagement
0.43*
0.25*
0.23*
Exhaustion
0.38*
0.27*
0.18*
Burnout
0.45*
0.35*
0.27*
0.20*
0.37*
0.41*
Anxiety
0.15*
0.32*
0.38*
Depression
0.25*
0.40*
0.47*
Hostility
0.30*
0.44*
0.39*
Gender Harassment
0.26*
0.39*
0.36*
Unwanted Attention
0.13*
0.20*
0.14*
Sexual Coercion
0.72*
0.72*
0.22*
* Association significant p <.01 (Expected less than 1 time in 100 if occurring by chance)
29
Table 13. Scale Distributions
Scale
Job Content Questionnaire
Job Demands
Skill Discretion
Decision Authority
Support (Supervis.)
Support (Cowork.)
Organizational Commitment
Turnover
Job Satisfaction
Threat
Pressure
Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
Disengagement
Exhaustion
Copenhagen Burnout Inventory
Brief Symptom Inventory
Anxiety
Depression
Hostility
Perceptions of Fair
Interpersonal Treatment Scale
Employer
Coworker
Workplace Incivility Scale
Supervisor
Coworker
Customer (outside workers)
Coping with Harassment
Passive
Active
Sexual Experiences
Questionnaire
Gender Harassment
Unwanted Attention
Sexual Coercion
Mean
(Standard
Deviation)
Actual
Minimum - Maximum
Theoretical
Minimum - Maximum
34 (7)
27 (7)
28 (8)
9 (3)
11 (3)
3 (1)
2 (1)
4 (1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
12 – 48
12 – 48
12 – 48
4 – 16
4 – 16
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
12 – 48
12 – 48
12 – 48
4 – 16
4 – 16
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
19 (5)
19 (5)
44 (21)
7 – 30
6 – 30
0 – 100
6 – 30
6 – 30
0 – 100
2 (0.6)
2 (0.6)
2 (0.6)
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
2 (0.3)
2 (0.4)
1–3
1–3
1–5
1–5
13 (6)
12 (6)
7 (4)
12 (4)
7 – 35
7 – 35
5 – 25
7 – 21
7 – 35
7 – 35
5 – 25
7 – 21
2 (0.3)
1 (0.3)
1–2
1–2
1–2
1–2
1 (0.6)
1 (0.4)
1 (0.2)
2 (0.7)
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
30
Table 14. Adjusted Explained Variance Values (%) for Multiple Linear Regression Models3,4
Basic Model*
Incivility (Super.)
Incivility (Super.) +
Incivility (Cowork.)
Job Demands
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion +
Decision Authority
Support (Super.)
Support (Super.) +
Support (Cowork.)
Gender Harass.
Gender Harass. +
Sexual Attention
Gender Harass. +
Sexual Attention +
Sexual Coercion
Bullying
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion +
Decision Authority
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion +
Decision Author. +
Self-Rated
Health
Org.
Commit.
Job
Satisfact.
Threat
Pressure
Disengage.
Exhaustion
Burnout
Anxiety
Depression
Hostility
Low
Back/
Buttock
Neck and
Shoulder
Turnover
2.2
5.0
5.6
8.1
24.1
24.1
3.9
18.7
19.6
4.6
30.6
32.2
2.9
19.6
20.3
5.8
20.5
20.8
4.9
17.1
18.1
3.7
22.3
24.1
0.0
14.6
17.9
1.5
13.0
14.9
3.1
21.2
24.6
3.5
8.7
8.6
5.6
10.6
10.5
0.9
9.5
9.5
4.1
4.6
15.9
23.6
13.1
18.6
20.3
22.3
31.8
31.7
11.2
25.5
17.3
21.0
16.6
18.0
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
8.1
8.1
8.4
10.0
10.8
12.0
6.0
7.9
4.7
24.6
19.6
24.6
32.8
26.9
21.9
18.8
5.1
4.9
8.1
10.3
12.1
8.4
4.0
5.7
33.4
34.5
24.3
26.5
29.4
31.7
17.0
17.4
23.4
24.7
17.6
18.8
16.1
17.4
5.4
6.6
6.2
7.7
11.2
12.9
6.3
6.2
11.0
10.9
6.8
7.1
3.1
3.2
14.0
13.9
8.8
8.7
11.0
10.9
7.6
7.6
13.1
13.1
8.9
8.8
9.8
9.8
6.7
7.5
5.2
5.4
8.0
8.5
4.5
4.4
6.4
6.3
1.9
1.9
3.1
14.8
9.9
11.8
8.5
14.6
9.0
10.0
8.1
5.7
9.1
4.6
6.4
2.2
6.4
4.7
17.1
24.8
14.9
19.6
26.3
24.5
16.4
32.7
15.7
26.9
15.9
21.9
21.5
18.6
24.3
5.0
18.2
4.9
23.4
8.0
7.2
10.3
8.0
12.1
7.8
8.4
7.0
33.9
28.6
40.9
39.7
35.6
29.0
31.2
18.9
15.7
24.8
12.6
14.4
13.3
*Includes: age, gender, job class, job appointment, shift type
Note: “Super.” = supervisor, “Cowork.” = coworker
3
4
Note: Table continued on next page.
An explanation of R2 is provided on page 14 in the text.
31
Table 14. Adjusted Explained Variance Values (%) for Multiple Linear Regression Models cont.
Basic Model*
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion +
Decision Authority
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion +
Decision Author. +
Support (Super.) +
Support (Cowork.)
Job Demands +
Skill Discretion +
Decision Author. +
Support (Super.) +
Support (Cowork.)+
Bullying
Bullying +
Self-Rated
Health
Org.
Commit.
Job
Satisfact.
Threat
Pressure
Disengage.
Exhaustion
Burnout
Anxiety
2.2
4.7
8.1
24.8
3.9
19.6
4.6
24.5
2.9
32.7
5.8
26.9
4.9
21.9
3.7
18.6
0.0
5.0
6.8
39.3
31.6
39.1
37.7
34.8
27.3
24.8
7.7
41.3
33.8
45.4
40.8
38.1
30.2
6.3
6.3
17.2
23.9
14.9
19.8
26.3
33.0
16.1
20.6
15.9
21.1
15.9
18.5
Depression
Hostility
Low
Back/
Buttock
Neck and
Shoulder
Turnover
1.5
4.9
3.1
8.0
3.5
10.3
5.6
12.1
0.9
8.4
8.8
8.7
15.1
10.5
14.0
10.6
31.8
18.8
15.7
25.2
12.5
14.9
13.4
21.4
25.2
24.3
24.5
18.3
18.8
23.6
26.3
7.1
8.8
8.0
10.5
7.6
10.3
*Includes: age, gender, job class, job appointment, shift type
Note: “Super.” = supervisor, “Cowork.” = coworker
32
Figures
Anxiety
Coworker Support 4-7
Cowoerker Support 8-11
Supervisor
Incivility 7-11
Supervisor
Incivility 12-20
Supervisor
Incivility >20
Figure 1. Anxiety by Supervisor Incivility and Coworker Social Support
33
Depression
Supervisor
Incivility 7-11
Supervisor
Incivility 12-20
Supervisor
Incivility >20
Figure 2. Depression by Supervisor Incivility and Coworker Social Support
34
Hostility
Supervisor
Incivility 7-11
Supervisor
Incivility 12-20
Supervisor
Incivility >20
Figure 3. Hostility by Supervisor Incivility and Coworker Social Support
35
Appendix 1 – Letters of Information
36
PROGRAM IN OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MEDICINE
1200 Main Street West
Hamilton, ON CANADA
L8N 3Z5
INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS OF POSTAL WORKERS PROJECT
Re: Research project on Work and Health of Postal Workers
Dear Postal Worker:
We are inviting you to take part in this project on work and health of postal workers. The study
is being done by a research team at McMaster University, led by Dr. Harry Shannon. You were
randomly chosen by the McMaster research team to be asked to take part in this study.
The project has the support of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. They want to use the
results to understand how work conditions affect health and to improve work conditions.
We are asking you to complete the questionnaire included with this letter. TAKING PART IS
VOLUNTARY. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO FILL IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU DO NOT
HAVE TO. If you complete the questionnaire, please return it in the pre-paid envelope provided.
WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT NO-ONE OUTSIDE THE RESEARCH TEAMS SEES
YOUR ANSWERS. The questionnaires do not have names on them, and they will be kept in locked
cabinets. We will enter the data onto computers so we can analyze the results. We will use a password,
so only research team members can use the data on the computer. After the project is over, we will
destroy the questionnaires.
If you have any questions about the project, you can contact Lauren Griffith at 905-525-9140,
Ext. 26483 or Dr. Harry Shannon at 905-525-9140, Ext. 22147.
The project has been approved by the Research Ethics Board at Hamilton Health
Sciences/McMaster University. You can contact them via Ms. Deborah Mazzetti, Room 1, 90 Wing,
Henderson Hospital, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton ON L8V 1C3. Telephone 905-527-4322, Ext.
42013.
We hope you will take part in this project.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Harry Shannon
37
FEUILLE D’INFORMATION À L’INTENTION DES PARTICIPANTS ET PARTICIPANTES
À L’ÉTUDE DU SYNDICAT DES TRAVAILLEURS ET TRAVAILLEUSES DES POSTES
Objet : Étude sur le travail et la santé des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes
Madame, Monsieur,
Nous vous invitons à participer à une étude sur le travail et la santé des travailleurs et
travailleuses des postes. L’étude est menée par une équipe de recherche de l’université McMaster,
dirigée par le professeur Harry Shannon. L’équipe de recherche a choisi les participants et participantes
au hasard.
L’étude bénéficie du soutien du Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes (STTP). Le
STTP souhaite utiliser les résultats pour comprendre les répercussions des conditions de travail sur la
santé des travailleurs et travailleuses et pouvoir ainsi améliorer ces conditions de travail.
Nous vous demandons de bien vouloir remplir le questionnaire ci-joint. LA PARTICIPATION
EST VOLONTAIRE. SI VOUS NE VOULEZ PAS REMPLIR LE QUESTIONNAIRE, RIEN NE
VOUS Y OBLIGE. Si vous le remplissez, veuillez nous le retourner dans l’enveloppe pré-affranchie
qui accompagne le questionnaire.
NOUS VEILLERONS À CE QUE SEULES LES MEMBRES DE L’ÉQUIPE DE
RECHERCHE AIENT ACCÈS AUX QUESTIONNAIRES REMPLIS. Aucun nom ne figure sur les
questionnaires et ces derniers seront gardés sous clé. Nous ferons une saisie informatique des données
afin de pouvoir analyser les résultats. Nous utiliserons un mot de passe, donc seuls les membres de
l’équipe de recherche pourront utiliser les données saisies. Une fois l’étude terminée, nous détruirons
les questionnaires.
Si vous avez des questions au sujet de l’étude, vous pouvez communiquer avec Lauren Griffith,
au 905 525-9140, poste 26483 ou avec Harry Shannon, au 905 525-9140, poste 22147.
L’étude a reçu l’approbation du comité d’éthique de la recherche duquel relèvent l’hôpital
Hamilton Health Sciences et l’université McMaster. Pour communiquer avec le comité d’éthique,
adressez-vous à Deborah Mazzetti à l’adresse suivante : Room 1, 90 Wing, Henderson Hospital, 711
Concession Street, Hamilton ON L8V 1C3. Numéro de téléphone : 905 527-4322, poste 42013.
Nous espérons que vous participerez à l’étude.
Sincères salutations,
Harry Shannon, Ph.D.
Chercheur principal
38
39
Appendix 2 – Reminder Letters (One and Two)
40
(DATE HERE)
(EMPLOYEE ADDRESS
HERE)
Dear Postal Worker,
We recently wrote to you on behalf of our research group at McMaster University to ask you to
participate in a study of work and health of postal workers.
Because the survey is anonymous, we cannot track who has sent us their questionnaire. If you have
already returned the questionnaire, please accept our thanks. If not, please take the time to complete
the questionnaire we sent you a little while ago. Your help is very important.
If you have sent in your questionnaire and would not like any additional reminders, email Lauren
Griffith ([email protected]), and we can take you off our list. Please provide your name and
employee number in the email. Remember, we can not identify your individual survey if you email
us. Contact us if you have any questions about the study or would like another copy of the
questionnaire. Thank you for your help.
Yours sincerely,
Lauren Griffith
Project Coordinator
(905) 525 9140 ext. 26483
[email protected]
41
(MCMASTER LETTERHEAD HERE)
Le 13 septembre 2006
(EMPLOYEE ADDRESS
HERE)
Madame, Monsieur,
Récemment, au nom de notre groupe de recherche de l’université McMaster, nous vous avons écrit
pour vous demander de participer à une étude sur le travail et la santé des travailleurs et
travailleuses des postes.
Étant donné l’anonymat du questionnaire, nous ne pouvons savoir qui nous a retourné le questionnaire
une fois rempli. Si vous nous avez déjà retourné le questionnaire, nous vous en remercions. Si ce n’est
pas le cas, nous vous invitons à remplir le questionnaire que nous vous avons fait parvenir il y a
quelque temps. Votre collaboration est précieuse.
Si vous avez retourné le questionnaire et ne désirez pas recevoir d’autres rappel à ce sujet, veuillez
envoyer un message à Lauren Griffith ([email protected]), et nous pourrons alors retirer votre
nom de la liste. N’oubliez pas d’indiquer dans le message votre nom et votre numéro d’employé.
Sachez aussi qu’il nous est impossible de retracer votre questionnaire si vous communiquez avec nous
par courrier électronique. Si vous avez des questions au sujet de l’étude ou si vous souhaitez obtenir
un autre exemplaire du questionnaire, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec nous. Merci de votre
collaboration!
Harry S. Shannon, Ph.D.
Chercheur principal
Lauren Griffith
Coordonnatrice de l’étude
(905) 525 9140, poste 26483
[email protected]
42
Dear <name>,
We recently wrote to you on behalf of our research group at McMaster University to ask you to
participate in a study of work and health of postal workers.
Many people have responded, but we need all questionnaires to get a more accurate picture of you and
your workplace. Because the survey is anonymous, we cannot track who has sent us their
questionnaire. If you have already returned the questionnaire, please accept our thanks. If not, please
take the time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Your response is very important to make sure
the results of our study are valid.
This is our last mailing and we will not send you any more reminder letters. Please take this
opportunity to respond to the survey if you haven’t already. Feel free to contact us if you have any
questions about the study or the survey. Thank you again for your help.
Yours sincerely,
Lauren Griffith
Project Coordinator
(905) 525 9140 ext. 26483
[email protected]
43
(MCMASTER LETTERHEAD HERE)
Le 22 novembre 2006
(EMPLOYEE ADDRESS
HERE)
Madame, Monsieur,
Récemment, au nom de notre groupe de recherche de l’université McMaster, nous vous avons écrit
pour vous demander de participer à une étude sur le travail et la santé des travailleurs et
travailleuses des postes.
Beaucoup de gens ont répondu, mais nous avons besoin de tous les questionnaires pour obtenir une
image plus précise de vous et votre lieu de travail. Étant donné l’anonymat du questionnaire, nous ne
pouvons pas savoir qui nous a retourné le questionnaire une fois rempli. Si vous nous avez déjà
retourné le questionnaire, nous vous en remercions. Si ce n’est pas le cas, nous vous invitons à remplir
le questionnaire ci-joint. Votre réponse est importante pour assurer que les résultats de notre étude
sont valides.
Ceci est notre dernière lettre et nous n’allons pas vous envoyer d’autres rappels à ce sujet. Si vous ne
l’avez pas déjà fait, nous vous encourageons à saisir cette occasion pour répondre au questionnaire.
N’hésitez pas à communiquer avec nous si vous avez des questions au sujet de l’étude ou du
questionnaire. Merci de votre collaboration!
Harry S. Shannon, Ph.D.
Chercheur principal
Lauren Griffith
Coordonnatrice de l’étude
(905) 525 9140, poste 26483
[email protected]
44
Appendix 3 – Questionnaire
45
McMaster Health and Safety Study
Phase II
POSTAL WORKER SURVEY
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
2006
46
INSTRUCTIONS
In this survey, you will read different types of questions, with different ways that you will be asked to answer. These
are the three formats for the questions. Unless otherwise stated, choose only one response for each question.
& Many questions ask you to choose from a list by circling the appropriate number or letter, like this:
In your opinion, how effective are driver-training programs in Ontario?
a. not at all effective
b. somewhat effective
c. very effective
& Other questions ask you to circle a number using a scale from 1-5, like this:
In your opinion, how effective are approaches to increase seat-belt use in Ontario?
NOT EFFECTIVE
1
2
3
4
5
VERY EFFECTIVE
& Sometimes you will be asked to give a short answer.
Simply write the best answer in the space given.
Example: In what year were you born?
___________________
Please note that some questions appear similar to each other even though they deal with different issues.
We appreciate your answers to every question.
Anonymity and Confidentiality. All responses will be held in strict confidence. Your individual responses will
NOT be identified in resulting reports.
Please direct questions and/or comments to:
Dr Harry Shannon or Lauren Griffith
Occupational Health Program
Health Science Centre, 3H53
McMaster University
1200 Main St. West
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5
(905) 525-9140 Ext. 22333
E-mail [email protected]
47
HEALTH AND SAFETY STUDY - EMPLOYEE SURVEY
SECTION A – YOUR JOB
1.
For how long have you been employed at Canada Post? ________ years
2.
Are you employed:
a. Full-time
________ months
b. Part-time
c. Temporary
3.
What is your current job classification or group at Canada Post? (Please circle one only)
a. PO-2: Mail Handler
b. PO-4: Postal Clerk
c. PO-4: Retail Clerk
d. PO-5: Mail Dispatcher
e. PO-2 PT: Part-time Mail Handler
f. PO-4 PT: Part-time Postal Clerk
g. PO LC-1: Letter Carrier
h. PO LC-1: Motorized Mail Courier
i.
j. PO LC-1: Letter Carrier Assistant
PO LC-1: Night Router
k. PO LC-1: Mail Mobile Letter Carrier
l. PO LC-1: Relief Motorized Mail Courier
m. PO MSC-1: Mail Service Courier
n. PO MSC-1: Relief Mail Service Courier
o. PO MSC(HV)-3: Mail Service Courier
(Heavy Vehicle)
p. PO LC-1 PT: Part-time Letter Carrier
p. PO LC-1 PT: Part-time Relief Motorized Mail Courier q. PO MSC-1 PT: Part-ime Mail Service
Courier
r. PO MSC-1 PT: Part-time Relief Mail Service Courier
4.
s. Maintenance Technician
Shift Type:
a. Day
b. Afternoon
c. Night
5.
Which of the following Canada Post locations do you currently work at?
a. Edmonton
b. Vancouver
c. Hamilton
d. Toronto
e. Welland
f.
Sudbury
g. Montreal
h. Quebec City
i.
St. John’s
j. Other location (please specify): ____________________
48
6.
Thinking about your job now, please circle the number that best describes your answer.
Circle only one number for each statement.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree ------------------------------------- Agree
a. My job requires working very fast.
1
2
3
4
5
b. I have enough time to get the job done.
1
2
3
4
5
c. My job requires working very hard.
1
2
3
4
5
d. I am not asked to do an excessive amount of work.
1
2
3
4
5
e. I am free from conflicting demands that others make.
1
2
3
4
5
f. My job requires that I learn new things.
1
2
3
4
5
g. My job involves a lot of repetitive work.
1
2
3
4
5
h. My job requires me to be creative.
1
2
3
4
5
i. My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own.
1
2
3
4
5
j. My job requires a high level of skill.
1
2
3
4
5
k. On my job, I have very little freedom to decide how I do my work.
1
2
3
4
5
l. I get to do a variety of different things on my job.
1
2
3
4
5
m. I have a lot of say about what happens on my job.
1
2
3
4
5
n. I have time to take my proper breaks and lunch
1
2
3
4
5
o. Job rotation is respected
1
2
3
4
5
p. I have an opportunity to develop my own abilities.
1
2
3
4
5
q. My supervisor/manager is helpful in getting my job done.
1
2
3
4
5
r. My supervisor/manager is successful in getting people to work together.
1
2
3
4
5
s. My supervisor/manager is concerned about the welfare of those under him/her.
1
2
3
4
5
t. People I work with are helpful in getting my job done.
1
2
3
4
5
u. My workmates are understanding when I have a bad day.
1
2
3
4
5
v. My workmates are supportive.
1
2
3
4
5
w. People I work with take a personal interest in me.
1
2
3
4
5
x. People I work with are friendly.
1
2
3
4
5
y. There is a pleasant atmosphere at my workplace.
1
2
3
4
5
49
SECTION B – YOUR UNION
1.
Have you ever held a position in your union?
a. No
2.
b. Yes
Have you filed a grievance through your union in the last 12 months?
a. No
3.
b. Yes
How would you best describe union-management relations at Canada Post?
Very
Hostile
1
4.
Neither Friendly
Nor Hostile
2
3
Very
Friendly
4
5
How much can your union representative be relied on for support on or off the job when things get
tough at work?
Not at all ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very Much
1
5.
2
3
4
5
All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your union?
Very
Dissatisfied
1
Neither Satisfied
Nor Dissatisfied
2
3
Very
Satisfied
4
5
50
SECTION C – THE WORK ENVIRONMENT
1.
This section describes your opinions about your work environment. Circle the number
that best describes your answer.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree -------------------------------------------- Agree
a. I trust that Canada Post looks out for my best interests.
1
2
3
4
5
b. I feel quite confident that Canada Post will always treat me fairly.
1
2
3
4
5
c. I feel confident that information from Canada Post is honest and truthful.
1
2
3
4
5
d. I have a great deal of trust in the Canada Post management above my direct
supervisor/manager.
1
2
3
4
5
e. I am quite proud to tell people who it is I work for.
1
2
3
4
5
f. I feel myself to be part of Canada Post
1
2
3
4
5
g. I am willing to put myself out for Canada Post
1
2
3
4
5
h. In my work I like to feel I am making some effort, not just for myself but for
Canada Post as well.
1
2
3
4
5
i. To know that my own work had made a contribution to the good of Canada Post
would please me.
1
2
3
4
5
j. The offer of a bit more money with another employer would seriously make me
think of changing my job.
1
2
3
4
5
k.
1
2
3
4
5
l. I will probably look for a new job during the next year.
1
2
3
4
5
m. All in all, I am satisfied with my job.
1
2
3
4
5
n. In general, I like working here.
1
2
3
4
5
o. In general, I don’t like my job.
1
2
3
4
5
I often think about quitting this job.
2.
For this question, think about YOUR JOB in general.
Your feelings about your job in general
a. irritating
Never/
Almost Never Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
1
2
3
4
5
b. pressured
1
2
3
4
5
c. hectic
1
2
3
4
5
d. comfortable
1
2
3
4
5
e. hassled
1
2
3
4
5
f. many things stressful
1
2
3
4
5
51
3.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly
Disagree
4.
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
a. I always find new and interesting aspects in my work.
1
2
3
4
5
b. There are days that I already feel tired before I go
to work.
1
2
3
4
5
c. More and more often, I talk about my work in a
negative way.
1
2
3
4
5
d. can stand the pressure of my work well.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Lately, I tend to think less during my work and just execute it
mechanically.
1
2
3
4
5
f. After my work, I usually have enough energy for
leisure activities.
1
2
3
4
5
g. During my work, I often feel emotionally drained.
1
2
3
4
5
h. Sometimes I feel really disgusted with my work.
1
2
3
4
5
i. After work, I usually feel worn out and weary.
1
2
3
4
5
j. I get more and more engaged in my work.
1
2
3
4
5
k. When I work, I usually feel energized.
1
2
3
4
5
l. I cannot imagine another occupation for myself.
1
2
3
4
5
Are there certain parts of your work that are worse than others?
a. No
If NO, skip to section D
b. Yes
If YES, please describe them:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
52
SECTION D – YOUR HEALTH AND FEELINGS
1.
2.
3.
In general, compared to persons your age, would you say your health is:
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1
2
3
4
5
In the past week, how often have you suffered:
None of
the time
A little of
the time
Some of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
a. Low back and/or buttock pain
1
2
3
4
5
b. Neck and/or shoulder pain
1
2
3
4
5
c. Other pain: ________________
1
2
3
4
5
Please answer the following questions about your personal health:
Never/
Almost Never Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
a. How often do you feel tired?
1
2
3
4
5
b. How often are you physically exhausted?
1
2
3
4
5
c. How often are you emotionally exhausted?
1
2
3
4
5
d. How often do you think “I can’t take it anymore”?
1
2
3
4
5
e. How often do you feel worn out?
1
2
3
4
5
f. How often do you feel weak and susceptible to illness?
1
2
3
4
5
53
4.
During the past week, have you been distressed by:
Not At
All
A
Little Bit
Moderately
Quite
A Bit
Extremely
a. Nervousness or shakiness inside
1
2
3
4
5
b. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated
1
2
3
4
5
c. Thoughts of ending your life
1
2
3
4
5
d. Suddenly scared for no reason
1
2
3
4
5
e. Temper outbursts that you could not control
1
2
3
4
5
f. Feeling lonely
1
2
3
4
5
g. Feeling tense or keyed up
1
2
3
4
5
h. Having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone
1
2
3
4
5
i. Feeling blue
1
2
3
4
5
j. Feeling no interest in things
1
2
3
4
5
k. Feeling fearful
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
m. Spells of terror or panic
1
2
3
4
5
n. Feeling hopeless about the future
1
2
3
4
5
o. Getting into frequent arguments
1
2
3
4
5
p. Feeling so restless you couldn’t sit still
1
2
3
4
5
q. Feelings of worthlessness
1
2
3
4
5
Having urges to break or smash things
l.
54
SECTION E – SITUATIONS AT YOUR WORKPLACE
1.
For this question, think about your feelings towards Canada Post. All in all, what is it like most of the time?
Never
Once
Or Twice Sometimes
Often
Many
Times
At Canada Post:
a. Employees are praised for good work.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Supervisors yell at employees.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Supervisors play favourites.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Employees are trusted.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Employees’ complaints are dealt with effectively.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Employees are treated like children.
1
2
3
4
5
g. Employees are treated with respect.
1
2
3
4
5
h. Employees’ questions and problems are responded to quickly.
1
2
3
4
5
i. Employees are lied to.
1
2
3
4
5
j. Employees’ suggestions are ignored.
1
2
3
4
5
k. Supervisors swear at employees.
1
2
3
4
5
l. Employees’ hard work is appreciated.
1
2
3
4
5
m. Supervisors threaten to fire or lay off employees.
1
2
3
4
5
n. Employees are treated fairly.
1
2
3
4
5
o. Coworkers help each other out.
1
2
3
4
5
p. Coworkers argue with each other.
1
2
3
4
5
q. Coworkers put each other down.
1
2
3
4
5
r. Coworkers treat each other with respect.
1
2
3
4
5
55
2.
During the last year while employed by Canada Post, have you been in a situation where any of
these people did the following:
Your superior(s):
Never
Once
Or Twice Sometimes
Often
Many
Times
a.
Put you down or was condescending to you?
1
2
3
4
5
b.
Paid little attention to your statements or showed little interest in your opinion?
1
2
3
4
5
c.
Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?
1
2
3
4
5
d.
Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately?
1
2
3
4
5
e.
Ignored or excluded you
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Doubted your judgement on a matter over which you have responsibility?
1
2
3
4
5
g.
Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters?
1
2
3
4
5
Your co-worker(s):
Never
Once
Or Twice Sometimes
Often
Many
Times
h.
1
2
3
4
5
i.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
j.
k.
l.
Ignored or excluded you?
m.
1
2
3
4
5
n.
Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters?
1
2
3
4
5
Often
Many
Times
Your customer(s):
Never
Once
Or Twice Sometimes
o.
1
2
3
4
5
p.
1
2
3
4
5
q.
1
2
3
4
5
r.
1
2
3
4
5
s.
1
2
3
4
5
56
If you answered “NEVER” to all of the items above from a-s,
SKIP QUESTION 3 AND GO TO QUESTION 4.
3.
Please think of the one situation of those described in SECTION E QUESTION 2 (a-s) that BOTHERED YOU
THE MOST, and answer the following questions with that situation in mind.
a. Was the person who bothered you most (circle one only):
i. Male
ii. Female
b. Was the person who bothered you most (circle one only):
i.
A supervisor
ii. A co-worker
iii. A custormer
c. This person (directly or indirectly) could affect:
NO
NOT SURE
YES
i.
my reputation
1
2
3
ii.
my pay raises
1
2
3
iii.
my chances of being promoted
1
2
3
iv. how much I enjoy my job
1
2
3
v.
my ability to get my work done
1
2
3
vi.
my relationships with my co-workers
1
2
3
1
2
3
vii. whether I keep my job
d. How much did this situation bother you?
Not At All ---------------------------------------------------------------- Extremely
1
2
3
4
5
e. How long did this situation last?
One-time
Event
Less than
one week
Several
weeks
One to six
months
More than
six months
1
2
3
4
5
57
f. How did you handle the situation? Did you…
g.
No
Yes
i. try to avoid the person?
1
2
ii. tell yourself it wasn’t important?
1
2
iii. approach the person and discuss it?
1
2
iv. confront the person?
1
2
v. just try to forget it?
1
2
vi. try not to make the person angry?
1
2
vii. just ignore it?
1
2
viii. talk about it with a friend or family member?
1
2
ix. report the situation informally?
1
2
x. make a formal complaint?
1
2
xi. talk with a supervisor?
1
2
xii. just put up with it?
1
2
xiii. talk about it with a co-worker?
1
2
xiv. ask the person to leave you alone?
1
2
xv. talk to a union representative about the situation?
1
2
If you reported the situation or made a complaint, how satisfied are you with the outcome?
Very Dissatisfied ------------------------------------------------ Very Satisfied
1
4.
2
3
4
5
How often have you been exposed to degrading or oppressing activities by your co-workers and/or
supervisor(s) during the last six months?
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Often
Very
Often
Have you experienced:
a.
Inappropriate attempts to keep you from saying your opinion?
1
2
3
4
5
b.
Lies about you told to others?
1
2
3
4
5
c.
Being inappropriately disrupted?
1
2
3
4
5
d.
Being shouted at loudly?
1
2
3
4
5
e.
Being inappropriately criticized?
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Insulting comments about your private life?
1
2
3
4
5
g.
Being left out?
1
2
3
4
5
h.
Having sensitive details about your private life revealed?
1
2
3
4
5
58
4.
How often have you been exposed to degrading or oppressing activities by your co-workers and/or
supervisor(s) during the last six months (continued)?
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Often
Very
Often
Have you experienced:
i.
Direct threats?
1
2
3
4
5
j.
Insinuating looks and/or negative gestures?
1
2
3
4
5
k.
Accusations?
1
2
3
4
5
l.
Being sneered at?
1
2
3
4
5
m. People refusing to speak with you?
1
2
3
4
5
n.
Belittling of your opinions?
1
2
3
4
5
o.
People refusing to listen to you?
1
2
3
4
5
p.
Being treated as if you weren’t there?
1
2
3
4
5
q.
People saying things to hurt you?
1
2
3
4
5
r.
Being given meaningless tasks?
1
2
3
4
5
s.
Being given demeaning tasks?
1
2
3
4
5
t.
Having nasty rumours spread behind your back?
1
2
3
4
5
u.
Being ridiculed in front of others?
1
2
3
4
5
v.
Having your work judged wrongly and in a demeaning way?
1
2
3
4
5
w. Having your judgment questioned?
1
2
3
4
5
x.
1
2
3
4
5
Accusations of being mentally disturbed?
5. During the past 12 months, I have been subject to discrimination at Canada Post on the basis of: (Check all
that apply).
□ age
□ gender
□ race
□ ethnicity
□ disability
□ sexual orientation
□ religion
□ language
□ political belief
□ union involvement
□ other (specify________________________________)
□ none of the above: I have not been subject to discrimination
59
6.
Please answer the following questions as frankly and completely as you can; remember that YOUR ANSWERS
ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL.
During the last year while employed by Canada Post, have you been in a situation where any of your superiors, coworkers, and/or customers:
Never
Once
Or Twice Sometimes
Often
Many
Times
a. made stereotypic remarks to you about appropriate roles
of men and women?
1
2
3
4
5
b. made offensive remarks or jokes about members of your gender
in your presence?
1
2
3
4
5
c. commented on your physical appearance or attire in a manner
that offended or embarrassed you?
1
2
3
4
5
d. made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual
matters (e.g., attempted to discuss or comment on your sex life)?
1
2
3
4
5
e. made sexually suggestive comments to or about you?
1
2
3
4
5
f. stared, leered, or ogled you in a way that made you feel
uncomfortable?
1
2
3
4
5
g. attempted to establish a romantic or sexual relationship despite
your efforts to discourage it?
1
2
3
4
5
h. displayed, used, or distributed sexually suggestive materials
(e.g., pictures, stories, or pornography)?
1
2
3
4
5
i. gave you any other unwanted sexual attention?
1
2
3
4
5
j. implied more favourable treatment if you were sexually cooperative?
1
2
3
4
5
k. touched you in a way that made you uncomfortable?
1
2
3
4
5
l. made unwanted attempts to stroke or fondle you?
1
2
3
4
5
m. made you afraid that you would be treated poorly if you didn’t
cooperate sexually?
1
2
3
4
5
n. sexually harassed you?
1
2
3
4
5
o. made comments about your sexual orientation?
1
2
3
4
5
If you answered “NEVER” to the items above from a-o, SKIP QUESTION 7 AND GO TO SECTION F.
60
7.
Please think of the one situation of those described in SECTION F/QUESTION 5 (a-r) that BOTHERED YOU THE
MOST, and answer the following questions with that situation in mind.
a.
Was the person who bothered you most (circle only one):
i. Male
b.
ii. Female
Was the person who bothered you most (circle only one):
i. A supervisor
c.
ii. A co-worker
iii. A custormer
How much did this situation bother you?
Not At All ------------------------------------------------------- Extremely
1
d.
e.
3
4
5
How long did this situation last?
One-time
Event
Less than
one week
Several
weeks
One to six
months
More than
six months
1
2
3
4
5
Did you report the situation?
i. No
f.
2
Ii. Yes
If you reported the situation or made a complaint, how satisfied are you with the outcome?
Very Dissatisfied -------------------------------------- Very Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
61
SECTION F – INJURIES AND SAFETY
No
1
Yes
2
1
2
Did the injury require …
No
Yes
a.
b.
c.
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1.
Have you had any injuries at work in the last 12 months?
2.
Did you report your injury?
If No, why not? _____________________________________________
3.
4.
Medical attention?
Time off (beyond the shift on which the injury occurred)?
A change in job assignment?
Did you submit a workers’ compensation (in Ontario, WSIB) claim?
If no, why not? _____________________________________________
5.
Have you been on modified work in the last 12 months?
a. Yes am currently
b. Yes, but not anymore
c. No
If YES, how much time in total have you spent on modified work in the past 12 months? _____________
6.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
MANAGEMENT DOES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS IN OUR WORK.
Strongly
Disagree
1
7.
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Agree
5
Which of the following causes you the most fear for your safety at work? (Please circle ONE letter only)
a. Customers
b. Other non- employees
c. Supervisors or managers
d. People who report to you
e. Other employees
f. Vehicle accidents
g. Equipment accidents
h. Dogs
i. Other (please specify) _______________________________________
j. I do not fear for my safety at work
62
SECTION G – DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1.
Are you:
a. Male
b. Female
2.
How old are you? __________________________
3.
Are you:
a. Married /living with a partner
b. Single
c. Widowed
d. Separated or divorced
4.
What is your ethnicity/ethnic background? _______________________________________
5.
Were you born in Canada?
a. No
Where were you born? ________________________________________
For how long have you been living in Canada? __________ years __________ months
b. Yes
END
Thank you for completing this questionnaire.
There may be questions you have about the survey, or issues you feel are important but that were left out. Feel free to
make any comments below, or on the next page.
When You Have Completed the Survey
Please insert the questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope and return it to us by mail.
Please note that we will not be able to identify who has returned their questionnaire
63
Étude de la McMaster University
sur la santé et la sécurité
Phase II
SONDAGE AUPRÈS DES TRAVAILLEURS ET
TRAVAILLEUSES DES POSTES
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
2006
64
INSTRUCTIONS
Ce questionnaire comporte des questions de différents genres auxquelles vous devez répondre de différentes façons. Voici des
exemples des trois genres de questions. Sauf indication contraire, ne donnez qu’une seule réponse par question.
&
Certaines questions sont suivies d’une série de réponses parmi lesquelles vous devez choisir en encerclant la lettre ou le chiffre
correspondant, par exemple :
À votre avis, dans quelle mesure les cours de conduite automobile sont-ils efficaces en Ontario?
d.
e.
f.
&
pas du tout efficaces
assez efficaces
très efficaces
Dans d’autres cas, vous devez encercler un chiffre sur une échelle de 1 à 5, par exemple :
À votre avis, dans quelle mesure les programmes visant à encourager le port de la ceinture de sécurité sont-ils efficaces en Ontario?
PAS DU TOUT EFFICACES
1
2
3
4
5
TRÈS EFFICACES
&
Certaines questions demandent une courte réponse ouverte. Répondez au mieux de votre connaissance dans
à cette fin. Exemple :
En quelle année êtes-vous né(e)?
l’espace prévu
___________________
Veuillez noter que certaines questions semblent pareilles, mais portent sur des sujets différents. Nous vous saurions gré de répondre à
toutes les questions.
Anonymat et confidentialité : toutes vos réponses seront tenues strictement confidentielles. Les rapports de synthèse
ne permettront pas d’identifier les répondants.
Veuillez adresser vos questions ou commentaires à :
Dr Harry Shannon or Lauren Griffith
Occupational Health Program
Health Science Centre, 3H53
McMaster University
1200, rue Main Ouest
Hamilton (Ontario) L8N 3Z5
(905) 525-9140, poste 22333
Courriel : [email protected]
65
ÉTUDE SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ – SONDAGE AUPRÈS DES TRAVAILLEURS ET
TRAVAILLEUSES DES POSTES
SECTION A – VOTRE EMPLOI
1.
Depuis combien de temps travaillez-vous pour Postes Canada?
2.
Occupez-vous un poste :
____________ ans
___________ mois
d. à plein temps?
e. à temps partiel?
f.
temporaire?
3. Dans quelle catégorie d’emploi ou quel groupe votre emploi actuel à Postes Canada se classe-t-il? (Prière
d’encercler une seule réponse.)
b. PO-2 : Manieur/manieuse de dépêches
b. PO-4: Commis des postes
c. PO-4 : Préposé(e) à la vente au détail
d. PO-5 : Répartiteur/répartitrice
e. PO-2 PT : Manieur/manieuse de dépêches
f. PO-4 PT : Commis des postes
à temps partiel
à temps partiel
h. PO LC-1 : Facteur/factrice
h. PO LC-1 : Courrier motorisé
j.
PO LC-1 : Achemineur/achemineuse de nuit
j. PO LC-1 : Facteur adjoint/factrice adjointe
l.
PO LC-1 : Facteur motorisé/factrice motorisée
l. PO LC-1 : Courrier motorisé de relève
m. PO MSC-1 : Courrier des services postaux
n. PO MSC-1 : Courrier des services
postaux de relève
q. PO MSC(HV)-3 : Courrier des services postaux
(véhicule lourd)
p. PO LC-1 PT : Facteur/factrice à temps
partiel
r.
q. PO MSC-1 PT : Courrier des services
postaux à temps partiel
PO LC-1 PT : Courrier motorisé de relève
à temps partiel
r. PO MSC-1 PT : Courrier des services postaux
de relève à temps partiel
4.
s. Technicien/technicienne de la
maintenance
Quart de travail :
d.
Jour
e.
Après-midi
f.
Nuit
66
5.
6.
Dans lesquelles des installations suivantes de Postes Canada travaillez-vous actuellement?
a.
Edmonton
f.
Sudbury
b.
Vancouver
g.
Montréal
c.
Hamilton
h.
Québec
d.
Toronto
i.
St. John’s
e.
Welland
j.
Autre (veuillez préciser) : ____________________
Pour chaque énoncé, veuillez encercler le chiffre qui correspond de plus près à votre
perception de votre emploi actuel. Prière de n’encercler qu’un seul chiffre par énoncé.
Entièrement
Entièrement
en désaccord -------------------------- d’accord
a. Mon emploi exige un rythme de travail très rapide.
1
2
3
4
5
b. J’ai assez de temps pour terminer mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Mon emploi exige que je travaille très fort.
1
2
3
4
5
d. La quantité de travail que j’ai à faire n’est pas excessive.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Je n’ai pas à répondre à demandes conflictuelles.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Mon travail exige que j’acquière de nouvelles connaissances.
1
2
3
4
5
g. Mon travail comporte beaucoup de tâches répétitives.
1
2
3
4
5
h. Mon travail demande de la créativité.
1
2
3
4
5
i. Mon emploi me permet de prendre beaucoup de décisions indépendamment.
1
2
3
4
5
j. Mon travail exige un niveau élevé de compétences.
1
2
3
4
5
k. J’ai très peu de pouvoir de décider ma façon de travailler.
1
2
3
4
5
l. Mes tâches sont très variées.
1
2
3
4
5
m. J’ai mon mot à dire sur le déroulement de mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
n. J’ai assez de temps pour prendre des pauses et pour manger.
1
2
3
4
5
o. La rotation des tâches est respectée.
1
2
3
4
5
p. J’ai la possibilité de développer mes compétences.
1
2
3
4
5
q. Mon (ma) superviseur(e)/chef facilite l’exécution du travail.
1
2
3
4
5
r. Mon (ma) superviseur(e)/chef arrive à faire coopérer les membres de l’équipe.
1
2
3
4
5
s. Mon (ma) superviseur(e)/chef se soucie du bien-être de ses subalternes.
1
2
3
4
5
t. Mes collègues facilitent l’exécution du travail.
1
2
3
4
5
u. Mes collègues se montrent compréhensifs lorsque j’ai des ennuis.
1
2
3
4
5
67
v. Je peux compter sur l’appui de mes collègues.
1
2
3
4
5
w. Mes collègues s’intéressent à moi.
1
2
3
4
5
x. Mes collègues sont sympathiques.
1
2
3
4
5
y. Il règne une atmosphère agréable à mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
.SECTION
1.
2.
5.
B – VOTRE SYNDICAT
Avez-vous déjà occupé un poste au sein de votre syndicat?
a.
Non
b.
Oui
Avez-vous déposé un grief par l’entremise de votre syndicat au cours des 12 derniers mois?
a.
Non
b.
Oui
Comment décririez-vous les relations entre votre syndicat et la direction de Postes Canada?
Très
hostiles
Ni cordiales
ni hostiles
1
4.
2
3
4
Très
cordiales
5
6
7
Dans quelle mesure pouvez-vous compter sur l’appui de votre représentant(e) syndical(e) si
vous éprouvez des difficultés au travail?
Pas du tout ------------------------------------------------ Entièrement
1
5.
2
3
4
De façon générale, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait(e) de votre syndicat?
Pas du tout
satisfait(e)
1
Ni satisfait
ni insatisfait(e)
2
3
4
Très
safisfait(e)
5
6
7
68
SECTION C – VOTRE MILIEU DE TRAVAIL
1.
Dans cette section, nous vous demandons votre opinion sur votre milieu de travail.
Veuillez encercler le chiffre qui correspond le mieux à votre réponse.
Entièrement
Entièrement
en désaccord ------------------------------------- d’accord
a. Je crois que Postes Canada veille à mes intérêts.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Je suis à peu près sûr(e) de toujours être traité(e) de façon équitable
à Postes Canada.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Je suis sûr(e) que l’information diffusée par Postes Canada est honnête et véridique. 1
2
3
4
5
d. J’ai beaucoup de confiance dans les gestionnaires de Postes Canada plus haut
placés que mon (ma) supérieur(e) immédiat(e).
1
2
3
4
5
e. Je suis fière (fière) de dire pour qui je travaille.
1
2
3
4
g
f.
J’éprouve un fort sentiment d’appartenance à Postes Canada.
1
2
3
4
5
g.
Je suis prêt à faire des efforts pour Postes Canada.
1
2
3
4
5
h.
J’aime savoir que les efforts que je fais au travail ne servent pas seulement à mon
avancement mais aussi à celui de Postes Canada.
1
2
3
4
5
J’aime savoir que je contribue personnellement par mon travail au bien de
Postes Canada.
1
2
3
4
5
Si un autre employeur m’offrait un salaire un peu plus élevé, je songerais
sérieusement à changer d’emploi.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
l. Je me mettrai probablement à la recherche d’un nouvel emploi d’ici un an.
1
2
3
4
5
m. Dans l’ensemble, je suis satisfait(e) de mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
n. En général, j’aime travailler ici.
1
2
3
4
5
o. En général, je n’aime pas mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
i.
j.
k.
Je pense souvent à quitter mon emploi actuel.
2.
Pour répondre à cette question, pensez à votre travail EN GÉNÉRAL.
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il d’avoir les impressions suivantes?
Presque jamais Rarement Parfois
Souvent
Toujours
a. irritant
1
2
3
4
5
b. sous pression
1
2
3
4
5
c. frénétique
1
2
3
4
5
d. confortable
1
2
3
4
5
e. plein de tracas
1
2
3
4
5
f. stressant à plusieurs niveaux
1
2
3
4
5
69
3.
Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants?
Entièrement
en désaccord
En
désaccord
Neutre
D’accord
Entièrement
d’accord
a. Je trouve toujours de nouveaux aspects intéressants
à mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Il y a des jours où je suis fatigué(e) avant même de commencer
à travailler.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Je parle de plus en plus de mon travail en termes négatifs.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Je supporte bien la pression de mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Depuis quelque temps, j’ai tendance à moins penser à ce que
je fais et à exécuter mes tâches de façon mécanique.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Après le travail, j’ai habituellement assez d’énergie pour m’adonner
à des activités de loisirs.
1
2
3
4
5
g. J’ai souvent l’impression que mon travail me draine
émotionnellement.
1
2
3
4
5
h. Je suis parfois dégoûté(e) de mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
i. Après le travail, je me sens habituellement épuisé(e) et abattu(e).
1
2
3
4
5
j. Je m’engage de plus en plus dans mon travail.
1
2
3
4
5
k. Quand je travaille, je me sens habituellement plein(e) d’énergie.
1
2
3
4
5
l.
1
2
3
4
5
6.
Je ne peux pas m’imaginer faire un autre travail.
Trouvez-vous certains aspects de votre travail pires que d’autres?
a. Non
Si NON, veuillez passer à la section D
b. Oui
Si OUI, veuillez les décrire :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________
70
SECTION D – VOTRE SANTÉ ET VOS SENTIMENTS PERSONNELS
1.
En général, si vous vous comparez à d’autres personnes de votre âge, direz-vous que votre santé
est…?
Excellente
1
2.
Très bonne
2
Bonne
Passable
3
Mauvaise
4
5
Au cours de la dernière semaine, avez-vous souffert…?
Jamais
Peu
souvent
Parfois
La plupart
du temps
Sans
arrêt
a. de douleurs dans la région lombaire
ou au dos
3.
1
2
3
4
5
b. de douleurs au cou ou aux épaules
1
2
3
4
5
c. d’autres douleurs : ________________
1
2
3
4
5
Veuillez répondre aux questions suivantes sur votre bien-être personnel:
Jamais/
presque jamais Rarement
a.
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il d’être fatigué(e)?
b.
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il d’être épuisé(e)
physiquement?
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il d’être épuisé(e)
mentalement?
c.
d.
e.
f.
Parfois
Souvent
Toujours
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il de vous dire
« je n’en peux plus »?
1
2
3
4
5
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il de vous sentir
au bout du rouleau?
1
2
3
4
5
À quelle fréquence vous arrive-t-il de vous sentir faible
et vulnérable aux maladies?
1
2
3
4
5
71
4.
Au cours de la dernière semaine, dans quelle mesure avez-vous été
affligé(e) par les sentiments ou comportements suivants :
Pas du
tout
Un peu
Moyennement Beaucoup Extrêmement
a. Nervosité ou tremblements intérieurs
1
2
3
4
5
b. Contrariété ou irritation
1
2
3
4
5
c. Pensées suicidaires
1
2
3
4
5
d. Peur soudaine et inexpliquée
1
2
3
4
5
e. Accès de colère incontrôlables
1
2
3
4
5
f. Solitude
1
2
3
4
5
g. Tension ou surexcitation
1
2
3
4
5
h. Envie soudaine de frapper ou de blesser quelqu’un
1
2
3
4
5
i. Mélancolie
1
2
3
4
5
j. Désintérêt
1
2
3
4
5
k. Appréhension
1
2
3
4
5
l. Envie soudaine de briser ou de détruire des objets
1
2
3
4
5
m. Accès de terreur ou de panique
1
2
3
4
5
n. Au cours de la dernière semaine, dans quelle mesure
avez-vous été troublé(e) par les sentiments ou
comportements suivants: Sentiment de désespoir
face à l’avenir
1
2
3
4
5
o. Querelles fréquentes
1
2
3
4
5
p. Etre agité à tel point de ne pas pouvoir se tenir en place 1
2
3
4
5
q. Sentiment d’inutilité
2
3
4
5
1
72
SECTION E – SITUATIONS AU TRAVAIL
1.
Pour répondre à cette question, pensez aux sentiments que vous éprouvez à l’égard de Postes Canada.
Dans l’ensemble, comment est-ce la plupart du temps?
Jamais
Très
rarement
Parfois
Souvent
Toujours
À Postes Canada :
a. On félicite le personnel qui fait bien son travail.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Les superviseurs crient après les employés.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Les superviseurs font du favoritisme.
1
2
3
4
5
d On fait confiance au personnel.
1
2
3
4
5
e. On traite les plaintes du personnel avec diligence.
1
2
3
4
5
f. On traite les employés comme des enfants.
1
2
3
4
5
g. On traite les employés avec respect.
1
2
3
4
5
h. On répond rapidement aux questions et aux préoccupations
du personnel.
1
2
3
4
5
i. On ment aux employés.
1
2
3
4
5
j. On ne tient pas compte des suggestions du personnel.
1
2
3
4
5
k. Les superviseurs injurient les employés.
1
2
3
4
5
l. On apprécie les employés qui travaillent fort.
1
2
3
4
5
m. Les superviseurs menacent les employés de mise à pied ou de
congédiement.
1
2
3
4
5
n. On traite les employés équitablement.
1
2
3
4
5
o. On s’entraide entre collègues.
1
2
3
4
5
p. On se dispute souvent entre collègues.
1
2
3
4
5
q. Certains employés en rabaissent d’autres.
1
2
3
4
5
r. Les employés se traitent avec respect.
1
2
3
4
5
73
2.
Au cours de la dernière année, dans l’exercice de vos fonctions à Postes Canada, est-il arrivé que les
personnes suivantes aient ces comportements à votre égard?
Jamais
Une fois
La plupart
ou deux Parfois Souvent du temps
Vos supérieurs :
e. vous ont-ils rabaissé(e) ou ont-ils été condescendants envers vous?
1
2
3
4
5
f.
1
2
3
4
5
g. ont-ils fait des remarques humiliantes ou dénigrantes à votre endroit?
1
2
3
4
5
h. ont-ils manqué de professionnalisme en s’adressant à vous, en privé
ou en public?
1
2
3
4
5
e.
ont-ils fait comme si vous n’étiez pas là ou vous ont-ils exclus(e)?
1
2
3
4
5
f.
ont-ils mis en doute votre jugement sur une question dont vous êtes
responsable?
1
2
3
4
5
ont-ils tenté, contre votre gré, de vous faire parler de votre vie privée?
1
2
3
4
5
vous ont-ils rabaissé(e) ou ont-ils été condescendants envers vous?
1
2
3
4
5
ont-ils démontré peu d’intérêt dans ce que vous dites ou dans vos opinions?
1
2
3
4
5
s.
ont-ils fait des remarques humiliantes ou dénigrantes à votre endroit?
1
2
3
4
5
t.
ont-ils manqué de professionnalisme en s’adressant à vous, en privé
ou en public?
1
2
3
4
5
u. ont-ils fait comme si vous n’étiez pas là ou vous ont-ils exclus(e)?
1
2
3
4
5
v. ont-ils mis en doute votre jugement sur une question dont vous êtes
responsable?
1
2
3
4
5
w.
1
2
3
4
5
x. vous ont-ils rabaissé(e) ou ont-ils été condescendants envers vous?
1
2
3
4
5
y. ont-ils démontré peu d’intérêt dans ce que vous dites ou dans vos opinions?
1
2
3
4
5
z. ont-ils fait des remarques humiliantes ou dénigrantes à votre endroit?
1
2
3
4
5
aa. ont-ils manqué de professionnalisme en s’adressant à vous, en privé
ou en public?
1
2
3
4
5
s. ont-ils mis en doute votre jugement sur une question dont vous êtes
responsable?
1
2
3
4
5
g.
ont-ils démontré peu d’intérêt dans ce que vous dites ou dans vos opinions?
Vos collègues :
h.
ii.
ont-ils tenté, contre votre gré, de vous faire parler de votre vie privée?
Vos clients :
Si vous avez répondu « JAMAIS » à toutes les questions ci-dessus (« a » à « s »), SAUTEZ LA QUESTION 3 ET
PASSEZ À LA QUESTION 4.
74
3.
Parmi les comportements décrits à la QUESTION 2 (« a » à « s ») de la SECTION E, pensez à la
situation
qui vous a LE PLUS DÉRANGÉ(E). Veuillez répondre aux questions suivantes à propos de
cette
situation.
a. La personne qui vous a importuné(e) le plus était-elle (encerclez une seule réponse) :
i. un homme?
ii. une femme?
b. La personne qui vous a importuné(e) le plus était-elle (encerclez une seule réponse) :
ii. un(e) superviseur(e)?
ii. un(e) collègue?
iii. un(e) client(e)?
c. Cette personne pourrait-elle directement ou indirectement influencer :
NON
PAS CERTAIN
OUI
i.
votre réputation?
1
2
3
ii.
une augmentation de salaire?
1
2
3
iii.
mes chances de recevoir une promotion?
1
2
3
iv. combien j’aime mon emploi?
1
2
3
v.
1
2
3
vi. mes relations avec mes collègues?
1
2
3
vii. ma sécruité d’emploi?
1
2
3
ma capacité de compléter mon travail?
d. Dans quelle mesure cette situation vous a-t-elle dérangé(e)?
Pas du tout ------------------------------------------ Extrêmement
1
2
3
4
5
e. Pendant combien de temps cette situation a-t-elle duré?
Incident
isolé
1
Une semaine Moins d’une semaine, une
ou moins
semaine jusqu’à un mois,
un mois jusqu’a six mois
2
3
Six mois
ou moins
4
Plus de
six mois
5
75
f.
Comment avez-vous réagi à la situation? Avez-vous …
Non
Oui
i. tenté d’éviter la personne?
1
2
ii. tenté de vous convaincre que ce n’était pas important?
1
2
iii. approché la personne pour en discuter?
1
2
iv. confronté la personne?
1
2
v. simplement essayé d’oublier l’affaire?
1
2
vi.
1
2
vii. fait comme si de rien n’était?
1
2
viii. parlé de la situation avec un membre de votre famille?
1
2
ix. signalé la situation de façon informelle?
1
2
x.
déposé une plainte formelle?
1
2
xi. parlé à un(e) superviseur(e)?
1
2
xii. enduré sans rien dire?
1
2
xiii. parlé de la situation avec un(e) collègue?
1
2
a.
demandé à la personne de vous laisser tranquille?
1
2
b.
parlé de la situation à un(e) représentant(e) syndical(e)?
1
2
tâché de ne pas provoquer la colère de la personne?
g. Si vous avez signalé la situation ou déposé une plainte, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous
satisfait(e)
des résultats?
Très insatisfait(e) ------------------------------------- Très satisfait(e)
1
2
3
4
5
4.
À quelle fréquence avez-vous subi les actes humiliants ou opprimants décrits ci-dessous de la part de vos
collègues et (ou) de vos superviseurs au cours des six derniers mois?
Jamais Rarement
a.
Très
À l’occasion Souvent souvent
Tentatives déplacées de vous empêcher d’exprimer votre
opinion
1
2
3
4
5
b.
Mensonges à votre sujet
1
2
3
4
5
c.
Interruptions ennuyantes
1
2
3
4
5
d.
Des cris
1
2
3
4
5
e.
Critiques injustifiées
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Commentaires insultants sur votre vie privée
1
2
3
4
5
76
4.
À quelle fréquence avez-vous subi les actes humiliants ou opprimants décrits ci-dessous de la part de vos
collègues et (ou) de vos superviseurs au cours des six derniers mois?
Jamais Rarement
5.
Très
À l’occasion Souvent souvent
g.
Etre exclus
1
2
3
4
5
h.
Révélation de détails délicats concernant votre vie privée
1
2
3
4
5
i.
Menaces directes
1
2
3
4
5
j.
Regards insinuants ou gestes à connotation négative
1
2
3
4
5
k.
Accusations
1
2
3
4
5
l.
Attitudes méprisantes
1
2
3
4
5
m.
Refus de vous parler
1
2
3
4
5
n.
Dénigrement de vos opinions
1
2
3
4
5
o.
Refus de vous écouter
1
2
3
4
5
p.
Personnes agissant comme si vous n’étiez pas là
1
2
3
4
5
q.
Remarques blessantes
1
2
3
4
5
r.
Affectation à des tâches sans intérêt
1
2
3
4
5
s.
Affectation à des tâches dégradantes
1
2
3
4
5
t.
Rumeurs malveillantes répandues à votre sujet
1
2
3
4
5
u.
Railleries en présence d’autres personnes
1
2
3
4
5
v.
Critique de votre travail, à tort ou de façon dégradante
1
2
3
4
5
w.
Mise en cause de votre jugement
1
2
3
4
5
x.
Accusation d’être atteint(e) de troubles mentaux
1
2
3
4
5
Au cours des 12 derniers mois, avez-vous fait l’objet de discrimination chez votre employeur actuel en
raison de votre/vos ____ (cochez toutes les réponses applicables)
__ âge
__ sexe
__ race
__ ethnicité
__ handicap
__ orientation sexuelle
__ religion
__ langue
__ opinions politiques
__ activite syndicale
__ autre (précisez)________________________________
__ sans objet: je n’ai pas souffert de discrmination
77
6.
Veuillez répondre aux questions suivantes aussi franchement et complètement que possible. Nous vous
rappelons que VOS RÉPONSES DEMEURERONT STRICTEMENT CONFIDENTIELLES.
Au cours de la dernière année, dans l’exercice de vos fonctions à Postes Canada, est-il arrivé que l’un(e) de vos supérieur(e)s,
collègues ou client(e)s :
Jamais
Une fois
ou deux
a. vous fasse des remarques stéréotypées sur les rôles respectifs
des hommes et des femmes?
1
2
3
4
5
b. fasse des remarques ou des blagues grossières sur les membres
de votre sexe en votre présence?
1
2
3
4
5
c. fasse des commentaires déplaisants ou embarrassants sur votre
apparence ou votre tenue vestimentaire?
1
2
3
4
5
d. cherche contre votre gré à vous engager dans une conversation
à caractère sexuel (p. ex. sur votre vie sexuelle)?
1
2
3
4
5
e. vous fasse des commentaires sexuellement suggestifs, ou en
fasse à d’autres à votre sujet?
1
2
3
4
5
f.
1
2
3
4
5
g. tente de nouer une relation amoureuse ou d’avoir des rapports
sexuels avec vous malgré vos efforts pour l’en dissuader?
1
2
3
4
5
h. affiche, utilise ou distribue des documents à caractère sexuel
(photos, histoires, pornographie)?
1
2
3
4
5
i.
1
2
3
4
5
l. laisse entendre que vous seriez mieux traité(e) si vous cédiez
à ses avances?
1
2
3
4
5
k. vous touche d’une manière qui vous mette à l’aise?
1
2
3
4
5
l.
1
2
3
4
5
m. vous fasse craindre d’être mal traité(e) si vous ne cédiez pas à ses
avances?
1
2
3
4
5
n. vous harcèle sexuellement?
1
2
3
4
5
o. fasse des commentaires sur votre orientation sexuelle?
1
2
3
4
5
vous regarde d’une manière qui vous mette mal à l’aise?
vous témoigne d’autres formes d’attention sexuelle non désirée?
tente contre votre gré de vous caresser?
Parfois
Souvent
Très
souvent
Si vous avez répondu « JAMAIS » à toutes les questions ci-dessus (« a » à « o »), SAUTEZ LA QUESTION 7 ET
PASSEZ À LA SECTION F.
78
7.
Parmi les comportements décrits à la QUESTION 5 (« a » à « o ») de la SECTION F, pensez à la
situation qui vous a LE PLUS DÉRANGÉ(E). Veuillez répondre aux questions suivantes à propos de
cette situation.
a. La personne qui vous a importuné(e) le plus était-elle (encerclez une seule réponse) :
i. un homme?
ii. une femme?
b. La personne qui vous a importuné(e) le plus était-elle (encerclez une seule réponse) :
i. un(e) superviseur(e)?
ii. un(e) collègue?
iii. un(e) client(e)?
c. Dans quelle mesure cette situation vous a-t-elle dérangé(e)?
Pas du tout ------------------------------------------ Extrêmement
1
2
3
4
5
d. Pendant combien de temps cette situation a-t-elle duré?
Incident
isolé
Une semaine Moins d’une semaine, une
ou moins
semaine jusqu’à un mois,
un mois jusqu’a six mois
1
2
Six mois
ou moins
Plus de
six mois
4
5
3
e. Avez-vous signalé la situation?
i. Non
f.
ii. Oui
Si vous avez signalé la situation ou fait une plainte, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait(e)
des résultats?
Très insatisfait(e) -------------------------------------- Très satisfait(e)
1
2
3
4
5
79
SECTION F – BLESSURES ET SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL
Non
Oui
1.
Avez-vous subi une blessure au travail au cours des 12 derniers mois?
1
2
2.
Avez-vous signalé cette blessure?
1
2
Dans la négative, pourquoi? ____________________________________________________________________________________
3.
La blessure a-t-elle nécessité…
a.
b.
c.
4.
des soins médicaux?
votre absence du travail (plus longtemps que le quart pendant lequel
vous vous êtes blessé(e))?
un changement de fonctions?
Avez-vous présenté une demande d’indemnisation pour accident du travail
(en Ontario, à la CSPAAT)?
Non
Oui
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
Dans la négative, pourquoi? _____________________________________________________________
5.
Avez-vous eu un régime de travail modifié au cours des 12 derniers mois?
a. Oui, en ce moment
b. Oui, mais plus maintenant
c. Non
Si OUI, pendant combien de temps, au total, avez-vous eu un régime de travail modifié au cours des 12 derniers mois? _____________
6.
Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec l’énoncé suivant?
LA DIRECTION FAIT TOUT CE QU’ELLE PEUT POUR PRÉVENIR LES ACCIDENTS AU TRAVAIL.
Entièrement
en désaccord
1
7.
En désaccord Neutre
2
3
D’accord
4
Entièrement
d’accord
5
Lequel des facteurs suivants vous fait craindre le plus pour votre sécurité au travail? (Prière d’encercler une seule lettre)
a. Clients
b. Autres personnes ne faisant pas
partie du personnel
c. Superviseurs ou gestionnaires
d. Subalternes
e. Autres employés
f. Accidents de la route
g. Équipement
h. Chiens
i. Autre (veuillez préciser) __________________________________________________________________
j. Je ne crains pas pour ma sécurité au travail
80
SECTION G - RENSEIGNEMENTS DÉMOGRAPHIQUES
1.
Êtes-vous :
a. un homme?
b. une femme?
2.
Quel âge avez-vous? __________________________
3.
Êtes-vous :
a. Marié(e)/en union libre?
b. Célibataire?
4.
De quelle race ou origine ethnique êtes-vous?
5.
Êtes-vous né(e) au Canada?
a. Non
c. Veuf ou veuve?
d. Separé(e) ou divorcé(e)?
_______________________________________
Où êtes-vous né(e)? ________________________________________
Depuis combien de temps vivez-vous au Canada? __________ ans __________ mois
b. Oui
FIN
Merci d’avoir rempli ce questionnaire.
Si vous avez des questions sur ce sondage, ou si vous croyez que des questions importantes ont été omises,
nous vous invitons à inscrire vos commentaires ci-dessous ou à la page suivante.
Lorsque vous aurez rempli le questionnaire :
Veuillez l’insérer dans l’enveloppe affranchie ci-jointe et le mettre à la poste.
Nous vous rappelons qu’il ne nous sera pas possible d’identifier les répondants.
81

PROJECT FINAL REPORT Workplace Incivility and Other Work

Transcription

Documents pareils

Jump Rope for Heart

Le The Wilvy 2016-2

French Grammar Worksheet

Direct vibe handset Combiné à transducteur Bone conduction

The new method of reserving our own electronic ZED

4228 Holland Dr Des Moines, IA 50310 | Home for Sale | Real

Nom de la clauses

the beginning of the end - Royal British Legion in France

IC3 Complaint