The brutal murder of 20-year-old welder Amber Czech represents more than just a tragic workplace homicide—it exposes a systemic failure in how we identify and prevent targeted violence in professional settings. David Bruce Delong’s admission that he “did not like her” and had “planned the attack for some time” should send chills through every workplace in America. This case isn’t merely about one disturbed individual; it highlights critical gaps in workplace safety protocols, threat assessment procedures, and the dangerously casual way we handle interpersonal hostility in professional environments.
Workplace Violence Is Predictable and Preventable, Yet We Keep Failing
The details of Czech’s murder are particularly disturbing because they follow a recognizable pattern of workplace violence. Delong, at 40, targeted a much younger colleague (20) in a premeditated attack that he openly admitted planning “for some time.” This wasn’t a spontaneous act but a calculated decision that likely showed warning signs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), workplace homicides rarely occur without preceding threats, expressions of hostility, or observable behavioral changes in the perpetrator.
Advanced Process Technologies now joins a growing list of companies where preventable violence has occurred. In 2021, the San Jose VTA rail yard shooting left nine dead after the shooter had reportedly displayed hostility toward coworkers for years. In 2019, an employee at Henry Pratt Company in Aurora, Illinois, killed five coworkers after being terminated—he had a known history of workplace confrontations. These cases share a common thread: warning signs existed but weren’t adequately addressed.
The Legal System’s Reactive Approach Is Insufficient
The indictment of Delong for first-degree premeditated murder is appropriate, but it represents a purely reactive approach to violence. The criminal justice system excels at punishment after the fact but offers little in preventative measures. While Delong now faces potential life imprisonment without parole, this does nothing to bring back Amber Czech or address the conditions that allowed his hostility to escalate unchecked.
Legal interventions typically occur only after threats become explicit or violence has already happened. The threshold for intervention remains dangerously high. The FBI’s workplace violence studies indicate that most perpetrators communicate their intentions before acting, yet our legal frameworks rarely provide mechanisms for intervention based on concerning behavior that hasn’t yet risen to the level of explicit threats.
Corporate Responsibility and the Cost of Ignoring Workplace Conflict
Companies have both a moral and legal obligation to provide safe working environments. Advanced Process Technologies now faces difficult questions about their awareness of any tension between Delong and Czech. Did management notice hostile behavior? Were there complaints that went unaddressed? Was there adequate security in a facility where dangerous tools like sledgehammers were accessible?
The financial implications of failing to address workplace safety are staggering. Beyond the incalculable human cost, workplace violence incidents cost American employers approximately $121 billion annually according to the American Society of Safety Professionals. This includes legal expenses, workers’ compensation claims, lost productivity, and reputational damage.
Walmart paid $3.85 million in 2019 to settle a lawsuit after a supervisor’s repeated threats against an employee culminated in murder. The suit alleged the company ignored multiple warnings about the supervisor’s threatening behavior. These cases demonstrate that ignoring warning signs isn’t just negligent—it’s financially devastating.
The Gender Component Cannot Be Ignored
Czech’s murder also highlights the gendered nature of much workplace violence. As a 20-year-old female welder in a male-dominated field, Czech represented changing workplace demographics. Research from the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology indicates that women in traditionally male-dominated industries face higher rates of workplace hostility and harassment.
The power dynamic between a 40-year-old male employee and a 20-year-old female colleague deserves scrutiny. While we don’t know all details of their working relationship, age and gender disparities often create environments where reporting problems feels risky for the more vulnerable party. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that approximately 70% of workplace harassment goes unreported, often due to fear of retaliation or not being taken seriously.
Alternative Viewpoints: The Limitations of Prevention
Some might argue that preventing all workplace violence is impossible. Mental health issues, personal grievances, and impulsive actions can’t always be predicted or prevented. Privacy concerns and legal limitations also restrict how deeply employers can monitor or intervene in employee behavior and relationships.
Additionally, there’s the valid concern that overzealous prevention efforts could create hostile work environments through excessive surveillance or intervention in minor conflicts. Companies walk a fine line between protection and intrusion.
However, these concerns, while legitimate, don’t justify inaction. The predictable pattern of workplace violence means that reasonable preventative measures can significantly reduce risk without creating oppressive environments. Companies like Microsoft and Google have implemented threat assessment teams that intervene based on concerning behavior patterns rather than waiting for explicit threats, showing that balanced approaches are possible.
A Path Forward: From Reactive to Proactive Safety
Czech’s death should serve as a catalyst for meaningful change in how we approach workplace safety. First, companies must implement comprehensive threat assessment protocols that don’t rely solely on explicit threats but consider patterns of hostility, social isolation, fixation on grievances, and other warning signs identified by forensic psychologists.
Second, legislative reforms should lower the threshold for intervention when concerning behavior is identified. Workplace restraining orders and mandatory safety assessments for employees displaying warning signs could provide legal frameworks for prevention without criminalizing mental health issues.
Third, industry-specific training is essential. Manufacturing environments like Advanced Process Technologies have unique safety concerns, including access to potentially dangerous tools. Specialized protocols for these settings could prevent similar tragedies.
Most importantly, we must foster workplace cultures where reporting concerns is encouraged rather than stigmatized. Czech’s father described her as someone who
