Mon­i­ca Starke

There are com­pa­nies that are re­port­ing fi­nan­cial loss­es due to the mis­takes of abus­ing em­ploy­ees and there are com­pa­nies that are re­port­ing fi­nan­cial gains, in­creased job per­for­mance and de­creased ab­sen­teeism due to the in­tro­duc­tion and im­ple­men­ta­tion of sub­stance-abuse poli­cies in­to their or­gan­i­sa­tions.

Clear­ly, it is to the mu­tu­al ben­e­fit of em­ploy­ee and em­ploy­er to in­tro­duce and im­ple­ment sub­stance-abuse poli­cies which can in­clude drug-test­ing in every or­gan­i­sa­tion, to­day.

Many em­ploy­ees ques­tion the rel­e­vance of sub­stance-abuse poli­cies in the work­place. Many feel that these poli­cies are in­tro­duced be­cause em­ploy­ers want to spy on them or be­cause em­ploy­ers do not trust them.

On the con­trary, drug poli­cies are in­tro­duced be­cause many em­ploy­ers want to pro­tect their em­ploy­ees who are recog­nised by their com­pa­nies as the most valu­able re­source in the or­gan­i­sa­tion. A re­spon­si­ble em­ploy­er will there­fore strive to en­sure that em­ploy­ees are healthy and that the work­ing en­vi­ron­ment is safe for the pro­tec­tion of all em­ploy­ees and clients who are served. This means the in­tro­duc­tion and im­ple­men­ta­tion of poli­cies that en­sure a drug-free work­place.

There are spe­cif­ic guide­lines that should be fol­lowed when sub­stance-abuse poli­cies are in­tro­duced in the work­place. The pur­pose of the pol­i­cy should be clear­ly stat­ed and em­ploy­ees should be made to re­alise that even very small quan­ti­ties of nar­cotics or mi­nor drug and al­co­hol use could prove to be haz­ardous es­pe­cial­ly in cas­es where med­ical or oth­er emer­gency ser­vices are of­fered to the pub­lic and in cas­es where em­ploy­ees must use, man­age or be ex­posed to dan­ger­ous equip­ment.

In ad­di­tion to pro­hibit­ing drug use, most poli­cies will al­so clear­ly state that em­ploy­ees can­not dis­trib­ute, dis­pense or pos­sess il­le­gal sub­stances while they are on com­pa­ny prop­er­ty or while per­form­ing com­pa­ny du­ties.

Many com­pa­nies will al­so pro­hib­it the use of il­le­gal sub­stances when em­ploy­ees are not on du­ty be­cause the em­ploy­ees' mis­con­duct could re­flect neg­a­tive­ly on his/her em­ploy­er. Of course, when em­ploy­ees need to take drugs that have been pre­scribed by a physi­cian, this is ac­cept­able as long as pos­si­ble side ef­fects do not cause em­ploy­ees to be dys­func­tion­al on the job.

It is rec­om­mend­ed that com­pa­ny poli­cies should be gen­er­al in scope with con­se­quences that are clear­ly stat­ed for the ben­e­fit of all em­ploy­ees. A good pol­i­cy will al­so state the rea­sons why it is be­ing im­ple­ment­ed and will in­clude what will oc­cur when the poli­cies are vi­o­lat­ed. Of course, how well the pol­i­cy is writ­ten is so im­por­tant.

This should com­mu­ni­cate the se­ri­ous­ness of the is­sue and should be clear­ly com­mu­ni­cat­ed to em­ploy­ees at all lev­els of the or­gan­i­sa­tion. Cre­ative and mean­ing­ful meth­ods must be de­rived ac­cord­ing to the cul­ture of each or­gan­i­sa­tion to send a mes­sage of se­ri­ous­ness for the sub­stance abuse pro­gram.

The re­search in­di­cates that every com­pa­ny should es­tab­lish a sub­stance-abuse pol­i­cy in or­der to ef­fec­tive­ly ad­dress a work­place is­sue which is cur­rent­ly ris­ing and rec­om­mends the in­tro­duc­tion of sub­stance abuse poli­cies as the best de­fence against lit­i­ga­tion. These poli­cies pro­vide de­tailed in­for­ma­tion about dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tions that may oc­cur in case of sub­stance abuse.

When an em­ploy­ee is con­front­ed with the se­ri­ous mat­ter of pos­si­ble sub­stance abuse in his/her work­place, the ap­proach must be one that is firm but sen­si­tive and one that is con­duct­ed out of deep con­cern and re­gard for an em­ploy­ee's wel­fare and fu­ture well-be­ing.

The in­ter­ven­ing per­son should be trained and ca­pa­ble of be­ing non-judg­men­tal and car­ing but he or she al­so needs to be straight­for­ward and cred­i­ble. The se­ri­ous­ness of the sit­u­a­tion and the im­pli­ca­tions and con­se­quences need to be con­sid­ered if he/she does not take im­me­di­ate ac­tion to erad­i­cate the prob­lem of sub­stance abuse. An em­ploy­ee must be cau­tious­ly jolt­ed in­to the re­al­i­ty that his/her job is on the line in ac­cor­dance with com­pa­ny sub­stance-abuse poli­cies.

The an­swer lies in the em­ploy­er's per­cep­tion of each in­di­vid­ual em­ploy­ee and the em­ploy­ee's per­cep­tion of his/her role in the or­gan­i­sa­tion. In each case, when there is val­ue cou­pled with mu­tu­al re­spect and re­gard for the chal­lenges we all face to­day, em­ploy­ers will find ways to cre­ate aware­ness and pro­vide ed­u­ca­tion and train­ing pro­grammes.

They will al­so pro­vide for­mal and in­for­mal av­enues to as­sist, and ef­fec­tive meth­ods to iden­ti­fy at-risk em­ploy­ees. By em­brac­ing and prac­tis­ing this hu­mane ap­proach to man­ag­ing this grow­ing prob­lem of sub­stance abuse in the work­place, there is every op­por­tu­ni­ty for em­ploy­ers and em­ploy­ees to be able to ful­fil their re­spec­tive goals suc­cess­ful­ly.

Dr Starke is a lifestyle coach/coun­selor and an OD (Or­gan­i­sa­tion­al De­vel­op­ment) con­sul­tant who pro­vides work­shops and sem­i­nars for em­ploy­ees and su­per­vi­sors. Please con­tact her via e-mail at Thes­tark­e­re­al­i­ty@gmail.com or vis­it her Web site www.ct­clifeskills.com.