Here’s why….I am THAT employee. I used for the better part of 10 years. The best Meth addict you’d ever meet…unsuspected by most, kind to all, looked normal, work ethic fantastic. Personal life was horrific, but you’d never know it. For the addicted who are working a job, living as a functional user and just trying to avoid painful childhood memories, or an abusive spouse or perhaps just wanting that extra “kick” to get going in the morning and maybe lose a few pounds…LOSING THEIR JOB, or eventually multiple jobs, is the best wake-up call you can give them. If they can still maintain a job, they have the desire to be a productive citizen and are probably just going through some mental depression or personal issues. Most likely they are in denial about the substance abuse and don’t even recognize why they’re self-medicating. Losing a job is a reality check and the only way to get through to them that they aren’t going to ever “get-by” abusing drugs. Not forever. So from a recovering addict to the workforcel; don’t reach out and offer EXCUSES for addicts to keep using. Just fire them. It’ll save everyone involved a lot of time and money. Trust me, it’ll be the most beneficial thing you can offer to someone with a problem.

As an HR professional I certainly see value in covering bases… especially today, but is this what we have come to as a group of professionals. In a non profit company of over 200 employees, one would hope that better sense would prevail.

I have sent the link for HR Morning to her previous employer… unfortunately, it is appearing more and more evident that our profession is sliding the way of bankers, lawyers, and mob bosses… has ethics completely left the building?????

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.

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

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