{"id":6384,"date":"2011-09-19T19:22:13","date_gmt":"2011-09-20T02:22:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/?p=6384"},"modified":"2012-11-28T01:35:50","modified_gmt":"2012-11-28T09:35:50","slug":"the-origin-of-the-term-going-postal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/2011\/09\/the-origin-of-the-term-going-postal\/","title":{"rendered":"The Origin of the Term “Going Postal”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Today I found out<\/a> where the term \u201cGoing Postal\u201d came from.<\/p>\n

It seems to be common knowledge that if you have a co-worker who appears they might take out a 9mm handgun and play target practice with all the panicking office help, you would say, \u201che’s about to go postal!” It also seems like common sense then, that this could be because postal workers are a little on edge, that they will fly off the handle and kill everyone in sight if they don’t get their 15 min. smoke break. It turns out, that’s not really the case, but who’s to let facts get in the way of a good established term and public perception?<\/p>\n

The first known publication of the term \u201cGoing Postal\u201d was in the St. Petersburg Times on December 17, 1993. In his article Violence at work tied to loss of esteem<\/em>, Karl Vick stated; \u201cThe symposium was sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service, which has seen so many outbursts that in some circles excessive stress is known as ‘going postal…\u201d<\/p>\n

Later that month, on December 31st,<\/sup> the Los Angeles Times published an article The year in review, 1993<\/em> in which they stated; \u201cUnlike the more deadly mass shootings around the nation, which have lent a new term to the language, referring to shooting up the office as “going postal,…” It isn’t known who exactly started the phrase \u201cgoing postal\u201d but what is clear is that it was already a common phrase among Americans at that time.<\/p>\n

The stereotype was undoubtedly due to several incidents involving postal workers from 1986 to 1993. On August 20, 1986 postman Patrick Sherrill walked into his workplace, shot and killed 14 co-workers and injured 6 more before shooting himself in the head. On October 10, 1991 a former US postal worker, Joseph Harris, killed two employees at a post office in Ridgewood, New Jersey. Then, on November 14th<\/sup> of that same year, after being fired, Thomas Mcilvane killed 4 people and then himself at a Royal Oak, Michigan post office. In a terrible coincidence, on May 6th<\/sup> 1993, two separate shootings took place.\u00a0 The first one was at a post office in Dearborn, Michigan, where Lawrence Jasion killed one person and wounded three before killing himself. Within a few hours of that, in Dana Point, California, Mark Richard Hilbun killed his mother, and then shot two postal workers.<\/p>\n

It isn’t hard to see from these shootings where the public might get the idea that the postal service had some issues; the media was sure to follow. The postal service itself wasn’t taking a blind eye to the problem and in 1993 they created eighty five \u201cWorkplace Environment Analysts\u201d positions. The positions were to help with violence prevention and workplace improvement.<\/p>\n

Further, in 2000, the Postmaster General commissioned The National Center On Addiction And Substance Abuse for recommendations on how the Postal Service could provide their workers with the safest possible work environment.\u00a0 This report provided some interesting findings. It found that \u201cPostal workers are no more likely to physically assault, sexually harass, or verbally abuse their coworkers than employees in the national workforce.\u201d And that \u201cPostal employees are only a third as likely as those in the national workforce to be victims of homicide at work.\u201d<\/p>\n

This might seem like a win for the Postal Service, but the report also showed some glaring problems. It found that Postal Workers were six times more likely to believe they were in danger from other co-workers; that Postal Workers were less likely to believe their employer would take action against violence by non-employees; and that they were more likely to fear being attacked at work. The most astonishing finding was that workers were more likely to agree that managers and supervisors try to provoke employees to violence. Due to the overwhelming negative viewpoint of these workers, despite the facts, it would seem the postal service had some very poor morale.<\/p>\n

So while the postal service itself states that there is no evidence to suggest that their workers are more violent than others, American slang took a different view. We now have a very convenient term to use when we see a crazy angry person!<\/p>\n

Bonus<\/span> Facts:<\/p>\n