Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Methamphetamine and Drug Abuse in the Workplace
Don't be fooled with all the talk about Methamphetamine like it is something new. It's not. This nightmare substance that will enslave a user after one hit and turn them into something akin to a rotting corpse within a year is not new. I wrote an article in 1997 when law enforcement and federal government control agencies first started really focusing on this illicit drug. It has only gotten worse. "Ice" is a drug that has received a lot of attention in the media and become a major problem in our area of the country in recent years. What is it? "Ice" (you don't hear the term ICE used much, but it is still used) is the street name for a crystallized form of an illicit drug call methamphetamine hydrochloride. This drug is part of a class of drugs collectively known as amphetamines, which became highly regulated in 1965 to inhibit a black market that emerged from their abuse. There are several different types of amphetamines, and their effects are similar. Just as "Crack" is smokeable cocaine, "Ice" is smoke-able methamphetamine. The chemical properties of this drug are similar to cocaine, but the onset of its effects are slower and the duration is longer. Like cocaine, it is highly toxic and addictive. In general, chronic abuse of "Ice" produces a psychosis that resembles schizophrenia and is characterized by paranoia, picking at one's skin, severe dental problems, anger and rage-focused behavior. preoccupation with one's own thoughts, and auditory and visual hallucinations. Violent and erratic behavior is frequently seen among chronic abusers of amphetamines.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Work-Life Balance -- Boulogne & Attendance Problems
Is your employee late to work a lot? What about every day? So you don't want to fire the guy because he is a hard worker? Hmm. What to do, especially since he has told you his problem that he is having a hard time with work-family balance. So, what should you do? Believe him and refer him to the work-life coordinator over there in Building C, Room 0U812?
Absolutely not! That would be tantamount to accepting your employee diagnosis and signing off on the treatment plan. Here's the point. Encouraging use of the work-life program may be helpful, but it should not be an alternative or a substitute for a supervisor referral to the EAP which will be able to discover if the Work-Life program is appropriate. The expertise of the clinical professional associated with the EAP supercedes and takes priority over the skills of the work-life counselors. You are dealing with the attendance problem. Only a supervisor referral to the EAP is appropriate as an intervention for the attendance issue. From there, the EAP may suggest that the employee participate in the organization’s work-life program. It is possible that something beyond work-life balance issues contributes to your employee’s tardiness. Your employee may or may not be aware of these problems, their impact, or their cause. And it is likely that other problems would not be shared with you. It is therefore not good practice to accept on face value an employee’s personal explanation for performance problems by suggesting a source of help. Instead, let the EAP take this responsibility after completing an assessment. This will help ensure that the employee is referred to the best avenues of help.
Absolutely not! That would be tantamount to accepting your employee diagnosis and signing off on the treatment plan. Here's the point. Encouraging use of the work-life program may be helpful, but it should not be an alternative or a substitute for a supervisor referral to the EAP which will be able to discover if the Work-Life program is appropriate. The expertise of the clinical professional associated with the EAP supercedes and takes priority over the skills of the work-life counselors. You are dealing with the attendance problem. Only a supervisor referral to the EAP is appropriate as an intervention for the attendance issue. From there, the EAP may suggest that the employee participate in the organization’s work-life program. It is possible that something beyond work-life balance issues contributes to your employee’s tardiness. Your employee may or may not be aware of these problems, their impact, or their cause. And it is likely that other problems would not be shared with you. It is therefore not good practice to accept on face value an employee’s personal explanation for performance problems by suggesting a source of help. Instead, let the EAP take this responsibility after completing an assessment. This will help ensure that the employee is referred to the best avenues of help.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
My Female Employees Don't Mind Sexual Harassment
A supervisor recently told me that his female employees love the attention that many other women in the workplace would consider sexual harassment. The women in the workplace are young, and they also dish it out themselves. So is it a problem? He thought the media was make too much out of the whole sexual harassment thing.
This supervisor is missing the point, I think. It's true that many workplace behaviors that constitute sexual harassment either by definition or perception by female employees goes unannounced and without formal complaint, but this doesn't mean a charge against the employer won't come tomorrow. There's the rub.
The attention given to this problem legitimatizes the lodging of complaints by employees who have not come forward. And there lies one of the most important reasons to have policy and a complaint procedure in place. There are reasons many employees don't complain. Here are just a few. Which one's do you think are being impacted by recent media and court actions?
The employee doesn't feel he or she will be believed.
They fear some subtle or overt punishment by the employer or supervisor.
They don't trust that management will take action or will listen with an eye toward objectivity.
They don't want to "cause problems."
They may be accused of "wanting it" or "bringing it on."
They cannot provide a accurate accounting of the incident(s).
Often a charge against the employer will not emerge until an employee is terminated for some reason, regardless of the legitimacy of the discharge action. In other words, once a job is lost, many of these reasons in the eye of the victim disappear as roadblocks to lodging complaints.
Okay so the employees aren't complaining. Let's go so far as to say they love it. Are you offended personally? What about the behavior and its affect on the corporate mission? It's values? Any problems there. Of course there is.
You don't need a female worker's complaint to take action. Sexual harassment is not based upon the victim's motivation to file a complaint.
This supervisor is missing the point, I think. It's true that many workplace behaviors that constitute sexual harassment either by definition or perception by female employees goes unannounced and without formal complaint, but this doesn't mean a charge against the employer won't come tomorrow. There's the rub.
The attention given to this problem legitimatizes the lodging of complaints by employees who have not come forward. And there lies one of the most important reasons to have policy and a complaint procedure in place. There are reasons many employees don't complain. Here are just a few. Which one's do you think are being impacted by recent media and court actions?
The employee doesn't feel he or she will be believed.
They fear some subtle or overt punishment by the employer or supervisor.
They don't trust that management will take action or will listen with an eye toward objectivity.
They don't want to "cause problems."
They may be accused of "wanting it" or "bringing it on."
They cannot provide a accurate accounting of the incident(s).
Often a charge against the employer will not emerge until an employee is terminated for some reason, regardless of the legitimacy of the discharge action. In other words, once a job is lost, many of these reasons in the eye of the victim disappear as roadblocks to lodging complaints.
Okay so the employees aren't complaining. Let's go so far as to say they love it. Are you offended personally? What about the behavior and its affect on the corporate mission? It's values? Any problems there. Of course there is.
You don't need a female worker's complaint to take action. Sexual harassment is not based upon the victim's motivation to file a complaint.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
What If My Supervisor Is the "Troubled Employee"
If your company is of any appreciable size, you may have an employee assistance program. Regardless of what the insurance company's brochure says, the primary purpose of an EAP is a management tool to help the organization deal with at-risk troubled employees whose personal problems may affect job performance.
They get help by way of self-referral for their own reasons, or the supervisor makes a referral to the EAP based upon job performance. Your EAP is not an employee benefit like a free gym membership. It is much more profound than to call it a benefit. It is a programmatic approach for dealing with behavioral risk with an established "core technology" of elements that make an EAP an EAP. So, all of that said, what do you do in the situation where your boss is the troubled employee?
As a supervisor, you can't make a supervisor referral. So, now what?!
This question, often raised by supervisors during training, is not as difficult to answer as it may at first appear.
Assuming your supervisor is a troubled employee, it is likely that his or her performance, conduct, or attitude on the job is affecting you personally.
This means that contacting the EAP to help you resolve your problem with the supervisor's behavior is appropriate. The stress of a dysfunctional supervisor may be problem-solved many ways, depending on the circumstances.
This could include modifying the way you handle the stress to actually seeking organizational support in order to deal with a real problem. You may be able to discover creative solutions with the EAP counselor. Regardless, just as it would be appropriate to seek EAP assistance for ongoing conflicts with a co-worker, it is appropriate to seek assistance from the EAP if you are negatively affected by the behavior of a supervisor. This is always the best alternative to trying to "refer" your supervisor. So the surprise answer is that there is no one answer that fits all situation. However, the shortest route to discovering the most workable answer is to consult with the EAP expertyourself.
They get help by way of self-referral for their own reasons, or the supervisor makes a referral to the EAP based upon job performance. Your EAP is not an employee benefit like a free gym membership. It is much more profound than to call it a benefit. It is a programmatic approach for dealing with behavioral risk with an established "core technology" of elements that make an EAP an EAP. So, all of that said, what do you do in the situation where your boss is the troubled employee?
As a supervisor, you can't make a supervisor referral. So, now what?!
This question, often raised by supervisors during training, is not as difficult to answer as it may at first appear.
Assuming your supervisor is a troubled employee, it is likely that his or her performance, conduct, or attitude on the job is affecting you personally.
This means that contacting the EAP to help you resolve your problem with the supervisor's behavior is appropriate. The stress of a dysfunctional supervisor may be problem-solved many ways, depending on the circumstances.
This could include modifying the way you handle the stress to actually seeking organizational support in order to deal with a real problem. You may be able to discover creative solutions with the EAP counselor. Regardless, just as it would be appropriate to seek EAP assistance for ongoing conflicts with a co-worker, it is appropriate to seek assistance from the EAP if you are negatively affected by the behavior of a supervisor. This is always the best alternative to trying to "refer" your supervisor. So the surprise answer is that there is no one answer that fits all situation. However, the shortest route to discovering the most workable answer is to consult with the EAP expertyourself.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
DOT Compliance Training: Functional Alcoholic
Alcoholics in late stage addiction can still draw a paycheck, drive fork lifts, keep the books, and lead Boy Scout Troops. Until they have an accident or disturb your life in some way, you may be prone to using the term "functional alcoholic" to describe their drinking patterns. Stop using this enabling phrase. Have you heard anyone use the term "functional cancer". Of course not. That's because cancer is an "accepted" disease. We are still fooling around with alcoholism, but there are very understandable reasons for it. Centuries of misinformation dominate this problem, but in business and industry and in DOT drug and alcohol training we see supervisors and employees keeping these ill employees at risk for some of the worst calamities. From train wrecks to fender benders, enabling keeps alcoholics sick. The term functional alcoholic does have more precise meaning. It means "the drinking problem doesn't bother me." Actually, it really means the drinking doesn't bother you, "yet". If you do training with supervisors, this is a critical topic to include in DOT or Employee Assistance Compliance Training for Alcohol and Drug Education.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Reasonable Suspicion Training Didn't Help this Supervisor
I understand from one of my readers that she has, what she describes as a dedicated employee who is seeing a psychiatrist for depression, she also says this employee has an alcohol problem. Not suprising, she also says he has unpredictable patterns of absenteeism. The company has an EAP and their is a reasonable suspicion training program for alcohol and drug education of supervisors, but the question is, why use it or make a referral if he is obviously is seeing psychiatrist?
I know many of you will not believe this, but for some supervisors I have met, this makes perfect sense -- not to make a referral to the EAP. They have not referred such employees, despite their DOT supervisor training for reasonable suspicion because they believed, even with alcohol on the breath that the employee was in good hands with Dr. Freddy Freud.
Straight up, please refer these employees to your EAP. Persistent job problems are the proper basis for a supervisory referral not the workplace alcohol problem!
In this case it is absenteeism and refer for reasonable suspicion, too in accordance with your organizations drug free workplace policy. Often, employees seek help for personal problems they have themselves improperly diagnosed, like depression. Did you know that alcohol is a depressant? So, wallah!
Do you know that many depressed employees hope to heaven that a psychiatrist will call their alcoholism "a symptom" of depression? And guess why this is such a wonderful thing to the alcoholic? It holds out the possibility that he or she can one day drink normally again.
Believe me, there are many psychiatrists who want the patient to believe exactly this. And can you can guess why? Precisely. Can you say "ongoing" paying patient? So employees will seek help from the wrong source, or one which inadequately treats their problem.
A psychiatrist, without recommending alcoholism treatment, will be unable to successfully treat the illness because much more is needed than what the physician can offer. It is likely that this employee believes you are a sympathetic supervisor willing to wait. Wow, I can smell the risk from here. This is why the employees is willing an trusting, and desireous of sharing the nature of his problems with you without correcting the absenteeism. If you have not tried the EAP yet, and the threat of termination, as a motivator, you are overdue and over-ripe like a banana for a supervisory referral.
I hope you consider more reasonable suspicion training and more effecive dot supervisor training in the near future.
I know many of you will not believe this, but for some supervisors I have met, this makes perfect sense -- not to make a referral to the EAP. They have not referred such employees, despite their DOT supervisor training for reasonable suspicion because they believed, even with alcohol on the breath that the employee was in good hands with Dr. Freddy Freud.
Straight up, please refer these employees to your EAP. Persistent job problems are the proper basis for a supervisory referral not the workplace alcohol problem!
In this case it is absenteeism and refer for reasonable suspicion, too in accordance with your organizations drug free workplace policy. Often, employees seek help for personal problems they have themselves improperly diagnosed, like depression. Did you know that alcohol is a depressant? So, wallah!
Do you know that many depressed employees hope to heaven that a psychiatrist will call their alcoholism "a symptom" of depression? And guess why this is such a wonderful thing to the alcoholic? It holds out the possibility that he or she can one day drink normally again.
Believe me, there are many psychiatrists who want the patient to believe exactly this. And can you can guess why? Precisely. Can you say "ongoing" paying patient? So employees will seek help from the wrong source, or one which inadequately treats their problem.
A psychiatrist, without recommending alcoholism treatment, will be unable to successfully treat the illness because much more is needed than what the physician can offer. It is likely that this employee believes you are a sympathetic supervisor willing to wait. Wow, I can smell the risk from here. This is why the employees is willing an trusting, and desireous of sharing the nature of his problems with you without correcting the absenteeism. If you have not tried the EAP yet, and the threat of termination, as a motivator, you are overdue and over-ripe like a banana for a supervisory referral.
I hope you consider more reasonable suspicion training and more effecive dot supervisor training in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)