Labour market affiliation among non-bullied colleagues at work units with reported bullying
- PDF / 802,537 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 99 Downloads / 195 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Labour market affiliation among non‑bullied colleagues at work units with reported bullying Åse Marie Hansen1,2 · Matias Brødsgaard Grynderup3,4 · Thomas Clausen1,2 · Jens Peter Bonde5 · Anne Helene Garde1,2 · Linda Kaerlev6,7 · Henrik A. Kolstad8 · Annie Hogh4 Received: 7 March 2019 / Accepted: 29 October 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Aim This study investigates if non-bullied employees in Work units (WUs) where bullying occur, are more prone to leave the WUs than employees in WUs with no bullying, and if the prevalence of workplace bullying had an impact on leaving the WUs. Leaving the workplace was defined by unemployment or change of workplace at follow-up. Methods We had data from 8326 Danish public health invited employees from 302 WUs. Of these 3036 responded to a questionnaire on working conditions and health in 2007. WUs were classified into three categories of WUs: (1) no bullying (0% bullied), (2) moderate prevalence of bullying ( 2 h per week), smoking (three levels: smoker, former smoker, non-smoker), alcohol (two levels: 0–7 and ≥ 8 drinks per week), and self-reported post-school vocational training and education (three levels). We also performed a sensitivity analysis with five years follow up.
Results We had a sample of 6764 invited employees, not reporting WU bullying, from 297 WUs with six or more employees (Table 1). Of these, 123 WUs (2127 employees) had no employees reporting bullying, 58 (2242 employees) had moderate prevalence of bullying and 116 WUs (2395 employees) had high prevalence of bullying. Mean age in of employees in the WUs with no bullying, moderate and high prevalence of WU bullying were 45.4, 45.5, and 46.1 years. The population consisted of less men than women (20.0–29.9% of the invited), with the lowest in the moderate- and the highest in the high-prevalence group. We had 3036 respondents in 293 WUs with approximately 1/3 of the employees in no, moderate- , and high-prevalence of bullying groups. School education and job categories did not differ between the three WUs with no bullying, moderate, and high prevalence of bullying. Neither did mean scores on psycho-social factors. Educational level did not differ between the WUs, neither did the distribution of jobs. We tested the correlation between education and job and found an overall Pearson’s r to be 0.10, with the highest among no bullying WUs (0.16), 0.12 in moderate prevalence of
bullying, and the lowest correlation in the high prevalence of bullying WUs (0.02) (Table 1). We had for unemployment 106 cases and for turnover 743 cases. Of these we only had information on education for 23 and 321 cases for unemployment and turnover, respectively. For unemployment 1 year later we observed the ORs among the invited employees of 1.27 [95% CI 0.69–2.37] in WUs with moderate prevalence of bullying and 1.38 [95% CI 0.85–2.23] among invited employees in WUs with high prevalence of bullying, adjusted for size of WUs, age, sex, and job category (Unemployment model 3
Data Loading...
