I have to rant about an article I just read in the Summer 2008 edition of the Disaster Recovery Journal. I won’t name the author, as there are some very valid points in the article, however I’m a bit peeved about some of the general comments contained within it. It’s about workplace violence, which is a serious topic and in now way am I suggesting that it isn’t nor am I suggesting that no organization shouldn’t be without some sort of strategy to deal with the issue. In this I agree and support the authors comments and ideas. What I do take issue with are two generalizations made in the article that ruffled my feathers.
The second stated that “most” companies have a sign stating ‘weapons are not allowed on the premises.’ This is a good thing to have but is sure doesn’t reflect “most” companies I’ve been in. I’ve entered large office towers, financial industries, factories, pharmaceutical organizations, warehouses and many other types of industries and organizations over my 27 years of working and not once have I ever seen a notice that stated no weapons are allowed on the premises. Of course, I can’t argue with the statement itself, as it’s valid and should be there. But I’ve still never seen a sign like this. Is this an American thing or is it specific to an industry like government or military establishments. If so, that’s still not “most” companies.
If the Disaster Recovery Journal is to be a global organization and spreading the word of Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, it shouldn’t just focus on an American view, which the article seemed to insinuate. Disasters happen all over the world and there are more than just a single national viewpoint; they aren’t nationality or industry specific. They try to not print such generalizations.
Stoneroad's Blog 