October 1 Is Coming. Maryland Has a Safety Promise to Keep.
work-labor · September 1, 2026
The Davis Martinez Act was supposed to change how Maryland protects public employees from workplace violence. With the October 1 deadline approaching, the real question is whether the new standard will change conditions or simply create another process.
October 1 Is Coming. Maryland Has a Safety Promise to Keep.
There are times when government needs another meeting.
There are times when it needs another study.
There are times when it needs additional information before making a decision.
Then there are times when the information has already been collected, the warnings have already been made, the tragedy has already occurred, the legislation has already been passed, and what remains is simple:
Do what you said you were going to do.
Maryland is approaching one of those moments.
The Davis Martinez Public Employee Safety and Health Act created a stronger framework for protecting Maryland public employees. A major part of that work is the development of a workplace violence prevention standard through Maryland Occupational Safety and Health.
The significance of that should not get lost in regulatory language.
This is bigger than another workplace policy.
This is about whether Maryland learned something.
We Already Know Why His Name Is on the Law
Agent Davis Martinez was murdered on May 31, 2024, while conducting a home visit as a Maryland Parole and Probation agent.
His name should prevent this conversation from becoming abstract.
Before his death, AFSCME said Parole and Probation employees had repeatedly raised health and safety concerns.
After his death, DPSCS reconsidered significant portions of its employee safety approach.
Home visits were suspended.
Additional protective equipment was pursued.
Office security was strengthened.
Location tracking became part of the broader safety response.
Body-worn cameras became part of the discussion.
Training was examined.
Law enforcement assistance during certain field activities became part of the conversation.
Firearms were discussed.
Then Maryland passed legislation carrying Martinez's name.
That is a lot of activity.
But activity is not the same as change.
The question now is whether all of that produces a system that responds differently the next time an employee says:
"This is dangerous."
October 1 Matters
Maryland's workplace violence prevention standard is supposed to move this conversation from general concern to enforceable expectations.
That matters.
Because before Martinez's death, an employee could raise a safety concern.
The union could raise it.
A supervisor could raise it.
Management could discuss it.
A labor-management committee could put it on an agenda.
Another meeting could occur.
Another discussion could follow.
Everybody could technically perform their role while the underlying concern remained unresolved.
I have written about this before.
Everybody can be responsible while nobody is truly accountable.
A meaningful workplace violence standard has the potential to change that.
Potential.
That word matters.
Do Not Give Us Another Binder
Government is exceptionally good at creating documents.
Policies.
Directives.
Standards.
Training modules.
Checklists.
Acknowledgment forms.
Annual reviews.
Employees click the box.
Supervisors sign the form.
Management reports compliance.
Everyone moves on.
That cannot be the legacy of the Davis Martinez Act.
If Maryland creates a workplace violence standard that primarily proves an agency has a policy somewhere, we have missed the point.
I want to know what happens operationally.
What happens when an employee identifies a credible threat?
What happens when an agent is expected to enter an unpredictable environment alone?
What determines whether a second employee is required?
What determines when law enforcement assistance is appropriate?
How are prior threats considered?
How are violent histories considered?
How are weapons considered?
Who evaluates the risk?
Who has authority to change the assignment?
How quickly must management respond?
What happens when management disagrees with the employee?
What happens when AFSCME disagrees with management?
What happens when the concern remains unresolved?
Most importantly:
Who owns the decision?
Those are the questions that determine whether a safety standard protects people or paperwork.
We Have Better Data Now
Maryland's own occupational safety system has also provided another reason this cannot be treated casually.
MOSH's first Public Sector Safety and Health Report under the Davis Martinez Act found that violent acts represented the category with the highest injury incidence rate for Maryland state-government workers in the data examined.
Maryland's rate was substantially higher than the national rate for state-government employees.
Correctional institutions also appeared prominently in the safety data.
That matters because this is no longer simply AFSCME saying:
"Our members are unsafe."
The union absolutely has a role in raising those concerns.
But Maryland now has government-generated evidence demonstrating that workplace violence among public employees deserves serious attention.
That changes the conversation.
We can debate the solution.
We can debate staffing numbers.
We can debate management rights.
We can debate which union proposals make sense.
We can debate equipment.
We can debate firearms.
We can debate whether every requested safety measure is justified.
What becomes much harder to debate is whether the underlying problem deserves attention.
It does.
Maryland's own numbers say so.
This Is Where AFSCME Has Responsibility Too
The new standard should not become another opportunity for the union to simply say:
"We told them."
I have said this before, and I will continue saying it.
AFSCME should raise safety concerns.
AFSCME should document them.
AFSCME should challenge management when necessary.
But once Maryland establishes stronger enforcement mechanisms, the union should use them when appropriate.
If a legitimate workplace violence hazard exists and management refuses to address it, what happens next?
That answer should become increasingly clear.
Grievance?
Formal escalation?
MOSH?
PERB when labor rights are implicated?
Legislative involvement?
Public accountability?
The appropriate mechanism will depend on the circumstances.
But repeated discussion without resolution cannot remain the default.
Representation has to include an after-"no" strategy.
DPSCS Has an Opportunity Here
This does not have to become another DPSCS versus AFSCME battle.
DPSCS has already implemented significant safety initiatives.
The department deserves credit when something works.
Body-worn cameras have now been deployed throughout Maryland correctional facilities, and DPSCS has reported an encouraging decline in assaults following statewide implementation.
That should be watched.
If the decline continues, say so.
If the cameras are working, acknowledge it.
Employee safety should never become so political that we refuse to recognize progress because the "wrong side" accomplished it.
The same standard works in reverse.
If employees continue experiencing excessive mandatory overtime, unsafe staffing conditions, unresolved field risks, or workplace violence despite improving vacancy numbers and new technology, those problems should not be hidden behind the progress either.
Both things can be true.
That is what serious accountability looks like.
The Standard Needs Teeth
A workplace violence prevention standard worthy of Davis Martinez's name should make risk traceable.
A serious concern should move through something resembling this:
Hazard identified
↓
Risk assessed
↓
Immediate precautions considered
↓
Decision-maker identified
↓
Corrective action determined
↓
Deadline established
↓
Action implemented or formally rejected
↓
Unresolved risk escalated
↓
Outcome evaluated
Someone should own every stage.
That is how we stop institutional camouflage.
No employee should hear:
"That is a management issue."
Management should not simply hear:
"That requires funding."
Budget officials should not simply say:
"That is an agency decision."
The union should not simply say:
"We raised it."
The legislature should not simply request another report.
Someone eventually has to make a decision.
Then that decision needs a name attached to it.
The Next Davis Martinez Should Be a Warning, Not Another Name on a Law
That is what Maryland should be trying to accomplish.
Not eliminating every danger.
That is impossible.
Corrections is dangerous work.
Community supervision can be dangerous work.
Public safety will always involve risk.
The goal is not pretending otherwise.
The goal is identifying which risks are inherent to the profession and which risks are unnecessarily created, increased, or ignored by the system surrounding the employee.
That distinction matters.
Employees accept occupational risk.
They should not be expected to accept preventable organizational risk simply because somebody calls both of them "part of the job."
October 1 Is More Than a Deadline
Maryland passed the Davis Martinez Act.
MOSH began building the new public-sector safety structure.
Employees participated.
Stakeholders provided input.
Data has been collected.
The workplace violence problem has been documented.
Now comes the part that matters.
Implementation.
October 1 should not simply produce another regulation Maryland can say it completed.
It should mark the beginning of a different answer when a Maryland public employee says:
"I do not believe this is safe."
The answer cannot automatically be yes.
Employees will not always be right.
AFSCME will not always be right.
Management will not always be wrong.
But the concern should have somewhere to go.
Someone should evaluate it.
Someone should possess authority.
Someone should make the decision.
Someone should be accountable for what happens next.
Davis Martinez's name is already attached to the law.
Maryland should make sure his name becomes attached to something much more important:
A system that works before another family has a reason to learn why it did not.
Related articles
All articles