You suspect an employee is using drugs: What now?
April 18, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Communication, Drug Use, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Management, Supervisors, policies
You can’t prove it, but the signs are there. So how do you deal with suspected drug abuse without violating privacy rights or making false accusations?
Many would say, “Make it a performance issue. If he’s failing on the job, then tell him he has to shape up.”
OK, that’s good advice, but should you wait that long? If you suspect someone’s spaced out, there are costs – financial and social – associated with waiting.
In his best-selling book, “The Boss’s Survival Guide,” Bob Rosner explains how you can be a bit more proactive about the problem:
1. Get professional advice. Sure, you may think you’re pretty hip at spotting the signs of drug abuse, but most likely you’re not a pro at it. So contact a pro – a doctor or a drug counselor, for instance – to learn if you’re seeing the real thing, or just something else that looks like the real thing.
And then explore with the pros the possible courses of action for treatment. What’s available? What has the best record of success?
At the very least, you want some professional opinion and backup before you go to the next steps.
2. Approach the person, but not as an enforcer. You can, if you want, make threats about firing or other drastic measures to address the problem, but that probably won’t solve the problem. Instead, at least in the beginning, approach the person as a concerned colleague.
Explain that you’ve noticed a problem and have consulted with professionals to confirm your suspicions. And then attack the problem from the angle that, first and foremost, you want to help the person.
3. Present the plan and do what you can to implement it. You may be working through and Employee Assistance Program or not, but whatever you do, lay out a plan for the person and your role in it – as a coach or just someone to talk to.
At that point, it’s up to the person to take action. You know how it goes: “You can lead a horse to water, but …”
If the person doesn’t respond properly and performance or on-the-job behavior becomes an issue, you can deal with that under policies and disciplinary rules. But you’ll know that you did your best to keep the problem from getting to that point.
Tags: Behavior, bob rosner, drug abuse, performance, the boss's survival guide
April 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Sorry, but I disagree completely with this approach. Asking managers or HR to diagnose the cause of the employee’s issues will lead to more serious problems. Certain behaviors may be caused by drug use, but they also may be the result of a medical condition, either physical or mental. Simply put, neither the manager or the HR Representative is qualified to make such an assessment. While it is good to be able to get in front of these issues before they reach a critical point, the repercussions of a misdiagnosis are enormous. It is exactly this sort of issue that led to the development and implementation of Employee Assistance Programs, and exactly the reason why the employee’s involvement in such programs is completely confidential.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Richard: Thanks for your comment.
I believe the advice in the book does not ask the HR person to diagnose the problem. It just suggests that you can approach the employee and mention that there’s a problem — related to performance, behavior, etc., and the options available if the problem is substance-related.
The employee is able, at the point, to deny the problem is substance-related or accept help. Sorry, but I didn’t see any diagnosis in that info or violation of the employee’s privacy.
Thanks again for commenting.
Jim Giuliano
Editor
HRMorning.com
April 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I completely agree with Mr. Loupee. I also find it hard to believe that any professional would make a diagnosis or an evaluation without seeing the person in question. Our company keeps it performance based. If they begin to share their reasons are medical, mental, etc. then we refer them to the EAP.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Because we have people working for us with CDL A or B licenses, driving our vehicles, we have a drug & alcohol substance policy in effect. All of our drivers know they are subject to random drug & alcohol testing. If someone is coming back to work after being out on disability or workers’ compensation for a period of time, they are required to be cleared from both his/her own physician and our physician before they can return to work. At that time they also have a drug and alcohol test. If the test is positive, the testing facility checks with the employee to be sure there have not been any legal drugs taken that could lead to a false positive.
If there is (reasonable) suspicion of someone coming in to work with drugs or alcohol in their system, we can have them tested immediately. If we didn’t have them tested and later there is an accident, we’re wide open for lawsuits for letting an impaired person behind the wheel. For this same reason, if there is a suspicion a manager will bring the employee to the testing site. Our insurance company backs us up on this, as long as others are also being tested randomly.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Jim-
Perhaps our positions are not widely separated, or perhaps I’m missing the point. I believe most of us would be fine in approaching an employee with an apparent issue, and suggesting possible general courses of action (e.g., the Employee Assistance Program or the like), and also making ourselves available to help in some ways. We have gone through those steps in many cases, especially in situations in which the employee’s performance or behavior has taken a turn for the worse, but before we have come to the disciplinary stage. However, I believe that by suggesting the manager or HR contact a doctor or drug counselor based on what he or she sees (or what he or she believes), the article seems to take the issue from generalized possible causes to a specific assumption of cause. It’s that assumption with which I have the issue, and which I believe can only be the province of the doctor or trained professional.
My two cents in any case.
Richard
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
In the industry I work in this is an issue. It is important that in your policies handbook you have a place that states that all employees must inform their supervisor when they are taking medication during work hours. This takes some of the responsibility off the employer and places it on the employee. It also protects you later if the employee says that he/she was behaving in a certain manner because of the side effects of medication.
What I’ve done in the past is make sure there are definite signs that something is going on drug related or not. For instance, if an employee suddenly begins to miss work, their hygiene changes, they’re falling asleep on the job, or there are behavorial changes. I then, in a very subtle way ask the employee if there is anything going on in their life that is causing the above mentioned changes and/or if they are on any medications and proceed from there. This is their opportunity to come clean and it possibly relieves the company of any obligations to send the person for help.
The easiest way is to make it a performance issue and get rid of the person. Unless the employee states they have a drug problem, I would not state that I suspect the employee of drug abuse. Remember that past drug use is protected under the ADA which is another can of worms.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am
This is my job with Drug Free Compliance, Inc.
Observations should be conducted by two managers if possible. If it’s agreed that the behavior is suspect, ALWAYS keep drug abuse as a last possibility. Document everything! There could be personal family problems, mental issues, etc. If it is obvious that it’s a drug (or alcohol) then the employee should be called in to discuss the observations made by the managers. No discussion is made, as it will only give the employee an opportunity to give excuses. The employee is then escorted to a collection site to validate drug use. If the result is positive, then you can address assistance, or just firing if it’s a small company with a no-tolerance policy. If negative, help in assisting with any personal problems by recommending a counselor.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:57 am
How do I approach a shop supervisor that is known to imbibe during his lunch break (away from the workplace) and comes back smeling like a brewery. Sometimes even reports to work in the morning the same way. Do I treat him like all the rest and tell him he must go for a random test due to reasonable suspicion because of an anonymous tip? Bearing in mind, that a positive result requires termination due to a zero tolerance program. The only negative in this whole scenario is that the president of the company hired him and did not make him sign off on any of the company policies which include Drug and Alcohol Policy. What are your suggestions?