DOT Training and Reasonable Suspicion Tip 4: “I have used.”

Here is another tip for you to consider in your DOT Training for Supervisors.
Occasionally employees will fully own up to their actions. Their honesty means “I need help” and frequently signals a substance abuse problem. Employees who admit to using drugs or alcohol should still be tested.

The goal of an employee who discloses use is sympathy. If you employee can garner sympathy from you, you might discuss the problem, and better yet accept the employee’s explanation, plans for treatment, and tale of whoa.

Manipulation is the goal. If your employee has a substance abuse problem, this may be the proverbial “rock bottom” moment. It is that incidental opportunity to get help. That starts with a drug test. Expect your employee to display distress, feelings of hopelessness, sadness, and remorse. But don’t feel guilty. Feel empowered.

Don’t make false promises out of sympathy. The main priority is getting the employee help through testing.”

After you’ve tested your employee, make sure that he has emotional support. If your organization provides employee assistance services, it is likely they are involved in the testing and assessment pathway. If not, encourage your employee to take advantage of services to which he or she may be referred.

DOT Training and Reasonable Suspicion Tip 3: “It’s medicine!”

Here is another tip for you to consider in your DOT Training for Supervisors.
This is a claim that requires you to be very careful about your approach. It might be medicine; it might be alcohol. Deal with your employee with the idea in mind that she might be telling you the truth. A false accusation can carry negative consequences for years. If an innocent employee believes you’ve impugned her integrity, your relationship may be permanently harmed.

This does NOT mean you should back off. Politely ask your employee for specifics about her medication—what it is, when it was prescribed, its side effects, and whether she can produce the medicine bottle or a prescription. You can also ask for contact information for the physician who prescribed the medicine. Carefully document each response.

Remember, if it smells like alcohol, then you can support your documentation even if you turn out to be wrong. What the employee claims that you smell is not part of the “screening out” process. This is about your observations, not someone else’s assertions.

Mixing alcohol with some medications can exaggerate their side effects. It’s possible that your employee is telling you the truth about her medication, but has also consumed alcohol. Or your employee may be abusing her medication by taking it in greater amounts than prescribed.

Don’t pressure yourself to figure everything out on the spot. Let your observations guide whether there’s reasonable suspicion and allow testing to make the final judgment.

DOT Training and Reasonable Suspicion Tip 2: “It’s mouthwash.”

Here is another tip for you to consider in your DOT Training for Supervisors.
This statement can put you in a tough spot because it seems plausible enough to introduce doubt. Don’t let this sway you from testing your employee.

If you can smell alcohol on your employee’s breath, then you can document it to support a test for reasonable suspicion. You’re also likely to have other supporting evidence like slurred speech, erratic behavior, trouble walking, etc. If your employee has been at work for awhile, you can ask him/her to show you the mouthwash, but don’t require it.

You’re focused on smell. It doesn’t make any difference whether the employee used mouthwash or not. Ethyl alcohol-based beverages and their metabolization have a common smell. The supervisor does not have to describe the smell of alcohol. “I smelled alcohol” is good enough. Document your observations and administer a test as quickly as reasonably possible.

Be careful not to accuse or rush to judgment. It might be mouthwash, or maybe not. Avoid getting into arguments with your employee. Your goal should be to keep your employee calm and allow your testing to determine whether there’s a significant amount of alcohol in his/her system. You don’t have to prove anything right now other than reasonable suspicion. Explain to your employee that the best way to clear up any confusion is take a required test.

Keep in mind that your employee may be telling you the truth and still be intoxicated. Some alcoholics in the later stages of the disease have consumed mouthwash in quantities large enough to induce intoxication—some mouthwashes are 50 proof or more. Alcohol rehabilitation facilities ban mouthwash based on their potential for abuse.

DOT Supervisor Training and Reasonable Suspicion Trap 1: “I haven’t had a drink since last night!”

Here is another tip for you to consider in your DOT Supervisor Training.
In the heat of the moment, this excuse can seem quite reasonable, especially for those of us who have had a few late nights ourselves. Here’s something you probably won’t consider in the heat of the moment—just how long ago was “last night”?

Depending on when your employee stopped drinking, it can be as few as 3-4 of hours. Knocking off at 4am and catching a couple hours of sleep before work may fool your employee into thinking it’s a new day, but he can’t fool his body. Sleeping doesn’t metabolize alcohol and sober you up any faster than if you were awake.

But isn’t even 4 hours long enough to sober up? Not necessarily. Don’t make the mistake of projecting your own consumption habits onto your employee. He may have consumed an amount that far exceeds your own capacity. If your employee has a substance abuse problem, it’s far more likely that he’s been engaging in binge drinking. Having 10 or more drinks in one sitting is not unheard of.

Employees who have a high tolerance to alcohol could have their last drink late at night and still be under the influence well after sunrise. They don’t have to drink just before coming to work or first thing in the morning to be under the influence. Don’t let this statement convince you that a test is unnecessary.

Let me offer a little brain teaser

An employee tests positive for marijuana is evaluated and referred to an addiction treatment program. Fine enough, but then this employee is in treatment getting more education about alcohol and marijuana. She calls you up and says, "get me out of here", they think I am an alcoholic.
What are you going to do?

I have seen supervisors fall prey to this game and give permission for their employee to leave! Assuming your employee is not alcoholic, several factors may explain her treatment. The most important is the nature of effective addiction treatment, which is founded on helping patients see the need to remain abstinent from all mood-altering substances, including alcohol. Because alcohol is legal and easily obtained, a strong emphasis on understanding alcoholism and on acquiring motivation for abstinence is needed. Your employee is being treated for addictive disease. Her drug of choice may be marijuana. The continued use of alcohol is a key predictor of eventual use of the primary drug of choice for any addict. Although understanding the harmful effects of marijuana is important, your employee will hear a lot about alcohol in any effective treatment program. The recovery principles are virtually the same no matter what the drug of choice.

Conduct Unbecoming is Powerful Leverage

Last week your assistant manager got in a bar brawl and then was arrested, only to be in the local newspaper the next day, which clearly embarassed your company. Then a couple days later, one of your truck drivers lost his license due to a drunk driving conviction that occurred while he was not on duty. Yep, the public found out about that one too.

Your employees have behaved in a way that represents conduct unbecoming an employee of your organization. This doctrine -- conduct unbecoming -- was originally developed by the military to address problem behavior among military officers. So, it is a military term originally, but don't think for a minute that this is only a military term.

Many companies are now beginning to adopt this behavior standard to deal problems similiar to the ones with these two employees. Talk to your company attorney. See if you can get a policy concerning "conduct unbecoming an employee", but not necessarily to fire employees. Instead use it as a lever to motivate acceptance of help from the company employee assistance program. Frequently conduct unbecoming is related things like alcoholism, gambling, anger management issues, domestic violence issues, drug use and many more.

If so with violations of conduct unbecoming, you have a lot of leverage, not to fire your best and brightest, but to motivate them to accept help for personal problems that have brought disrepute. With this leverage, you can get the employee to the EAP by using job security as a proactive lever to gain compliance.

Be careful. Always coordinate discipline decisions with your human resource advisor. One issue that requires attorney opinion is how to act on such a policy and avoid being accused by the employee of defaming his or her character. If an employee can point to the employer and say it imputed incompetence, stupidity, unworthiness of continued employment, or dishonesty to the employee, then their is a case for a defamatory claim.

Conduct unbecoming -- is it in your employee handbook?

Supervisors with No Authority to Conduct Evaluation

Have you experienced this problem: You supervise your employee’s work, but do not conduct her performance evaluations? This dynamic invites enormous and frequently conflicts that will prompt your employee to run to the next level supervisor for every one --the supervisor who conducts performance evaluations. Although most employees naturally accept delegated authority in supervision relationships, if you do not conduct your employee’s performance evaluation or have no role in its final outcome, your employee will not feel accountable to you. This dynamic contributes to conflicts. A troubled employee may take advantage of this situation, making it difficult to correct performance. Conflicts can increase if the manager at the next level (who does conduct performance evaluations) acts as an accessible arbitrator. This can cause the troubled employee to feel a safe harbor exists, reduce motivation for correcting performance, and reinforce the perception of non-accountability to the immediate supervisor. The interventions for this problem include reinforcing proper communication channels by requiring the employee to go through the supervisor first, making the immediate supervisor's contributions to the performance evaluation weigh heavily. Never ask your "assistant supervisor" to supervise an employee, but refuse to give this person evaluation authority in some small respect. A little is all it takes to completely change this destructive dynamic.