List date(s) this work was published or aired.
November-December 2011
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
In Luxembourg, there is no legal requirement for companies in the private sector to provide the working conditions to prevent psychological harassment (“harcèlement moral”) from taking place. Although such requirements do exist in the public sector, it appears that the government has been reluctant to provide the same requirements in the private sector. The article submitted focuses on the Luxembourg financial sector, the Grand Duchy’s main economic pillar, where since the start of the financial crisis and the consequent lay-offs, employees have been subjected to increasing pressure to deliver results, while job security has been considerably lowered. Throughout the investigation, it has become obvious that there is a clear lack of definition of what legally constitutes psychological harassment, which deprives victims from a clear course of action when they seek to take their case to court. Although neighboring Belgium and France do have such laws protecting employees of the private sector, Luxembourg is lagging behind. An agreement was signed between the government and trade unions, but it has no binding effect on companies that can choose to or not to put in place preventive measures against psychological abuse (other kinds of abuses, such as sexual harassment, are punished). Due to the country’s relatively small size and its economic dependency on the health and stability of the financial sector, it heavily relies on workers crossing the borders from Germany, France and Belgium on a daily basis to come work in Luxembourg, and who may be less aware of local laws. The Human Resources departments and trade unions representatives in the private companies do not seem to be able to provide the victims with solutions. The main conclusion of the article was that while Luxembourg is not especially plagued by psychological harassment in the private sector, including in the financial sector, the fact that no legal framework that could effectively prevent it from taking root exists, worsens the situation and leaves the victims with a sense of helplessness that can lead to severe depression, a rise of absenteeism in companies, and can cause more costs to the public health system.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
– Data on harassment cases were hard to find, as many victims choose to remain silent as a result of shame or a personal choice to simply turn the page and move on. A government-funded nonprofit (Mobbing asbl, mentioned in the article) provided numbers and underlined how understaffed the organisation is to address the victims’ needs. – A survey conducted by a French student in psychology provided statistics on the number of companies in the financial sector that were aware of the issue, had put mechanisms in place to prevent harassment, or else were ready to meet psychologists to do so. Her work paved the way for me to approach Human Resources departments in companies. – A lawyer helped me decipher the main legal documents harassment victims always refer to when deciding to take their case to court. I also requested examples of court decisions from the Luxembourg courts (the victims’ names were blacked out). – On the European Union level, I only found a “framework”, which, as it is no directive, has no legal binding effect. – There is no FOI law in Luxembourg. The government (Ministry of Labor) was straightforward in his answers, although quite misinformed.
Explain types of human sources used.
– Doctors to help define what psychological abuse is, and what it is not, and how victims react to this pressure. A coach also referred me to one of his patients who accepted to meet me. – The three victims I contacted all agreed to be interviewed, although only one agreed to meet in person, on the condition of anonymity. All three had an important grudge against the person who had been responsible for the abuse, and expressed incomprehension towards their colleagues’ “laissez-faire”. There were a lot of anecdotes that help me sketch a more complete description of how abuse takes root. – A lawyer was able to explain on what grounds victims can defend themselves, while pointing at the significant void left by the lack of any legal definition of what constitutes psychological abuse. – Finding a Human Resource manager was a bit more difficult as psychological abuse is a bit of a taboo topic (although this would probably be the case elsewhere where the law does protect victims).
Results:
The Minister of Labor promised he would bring the topic to the fore in 2012 and propose a legal definition of what psychological abuse is.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
While it’s tempting to divide the world between “good” and “bad” people with such an article, it’s also important to keep in mind that the perpetrators of psychological abuse may not be aware of the consequences of their actions. Also, questions should be asked about the state the company was in, how long the abuse took place, and what steps the victim took in order for it to stop. For the story to be right, the context in which the abuse took place should be described as precisely as possible. I think this precision also helps building a bridge between the readers who have witnessed the same types of events, and the victims’ stories.