Fire first, ask questions later

According to Chris Backeberg, programmes director for drug-testing firm Benedict Associates, Bermuda’s companies need to do more to help employees with drug problems:

“Companies have a duty to tackle this. If you’ve identified a problem, be willing to be part of the remedy,” he said.

I disagree. Companies are not charities. They are not social services. They exist to make money. An employee either helps them do that, or he does not. Companies do not have a duty to help their employees deal with any personal problem that’s impacting their work. The best that any employee can expect is that their company might choose to help them.

Mr. Backeberg suggests that it may be in a company’s interest to do so, since the cost of finding a replacement for a fired employee can be high. This may be true. However the cost of retaining the delinquent employee is unknown. He may prove unable or unwilling to reform. The burden that he places on the rest of the workforce may be unacceptable, particularly for a small company. It's hard to fault a firm that would prefer to cut their losses.

Employers have every right to fire a troublesome employee first and let the counsellors and the police ask the questions later.

Comments

[novote on 21.06.06 at 23:13]

Limey, I agree 100%. Companies may choose to support employees. Most likely that will be because there is a net commercial benefit to do so. They absolutely do not have a duty to do so. I'm all for corporate responsibility......but not as a substitute for other people's personal responsibility.

[lost in flatts on 22.06.06 at 06:51]

From the article, “The day Bermuda implements a drug-free school environment, we know we’ve come a long way. We’ve got to start with the kids,”

Erm, does that mean at the moment bermuda isn't implementing a drug-free school environment. Why the hell not?

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 07:52]

Thank you for your thread Limey and I welcome the discussion. I would like to set the record straight that Benedict Associates is comprised of a team of psychiatrists, psychologists and masters level therapists. We have been in business for over twenty years. In addition to private psychological and therapeutic services we have employee and student assistance programs that include a host of initiatives including our drug free environment programs. Less than 5% of the work done through our team of professionals includes drug testing. Drug testing is but one small part of a more wholistic and pragmatic approach to dealing with the on-going reality of substance abuse in the workplace. The second point that needs to be made is that it is unlawful and unconstitutional to fire someone due to their having an medical disorder. Chemical dependency is recognised as such in accordance with the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) In addition to this association the following also list chemical dependency as a disease ~ American Academy of Pediatrics, American association of Social Workers, American Chiropractic Association, American College of Addiction Treatment, National Churches of Christ in the USA, US Veteran's Association (and so on....you get the picture!). Many Bermudian businesses have shaped the way they do business to try and accomodate, ignore and deny the reality of substance abuse and dependence. The programs we advocate are set in place to bring pragmatic, fair and reasonable remedies to lessen the multi-layered impact of substance abuse in the workplace. The bottom line is companies do have a responsibility ~ prevention is everybody's business. Once again I appreciate your leading this thread...substance abuse and dependency are all about smoke and mirrors set against denial; recovery is all about transparency and action. We believe in people and peoples' recovery because believe it or not treatment works and recovery happens!

[selkieman on 22.06.06 at 08:09]

Re this drug-testing thing. I'm a wee bit bemused here. There seems to be a conflation of a number of different issues going on here which people are taking for granted.

Can we get back to some first principles here ?

Benedict Associates, and Mr Backeberg are in the business of selling their drug testing kits. Fair enough: its a free (sic) market out there. From their point of view, it would be fandabbydoosy if every man, woman and child was tested daily using their products. I read the RG article as little more than an extended sales pitch to that end.

The imputation seems to be that because we have this drug testing tech, we must use it comprehensively and prophylactically, and that this therefore puts companies in the position where they have to define their policy vis a vis chemical abuse.

The unquestioned assumption behind it therefore is that it is right to have ongoing mandatory testing of workforces. Except for 'mission critical' jobs, I would question that assumption. If, as he says, over 50% of employees are failing his company's tests, this alone gives pause for thought. Just what do you do with this information ? Sack half your workforce ? Put them all through therapy ?

If a company implements a policy of DFW, complete with mandatory testing , then it is incumbent upon them to develop policies to support and treat staff accordingly. You cannot impose a policy such as this upon your workforce without having the means to deal with this across that whole workforce. By instituting a DFW policy, you, as a company, create a problem. You must then come up with a workable solution. To that extent I agree with one of the main thrusts of his and the articles’ argument.

Chemical use and abuse are also being conflated here. People drink, people take drugs, (and if BA’s numbers are to be believed, a lot of Bermudians are having a high old time of it). Neither activity, in and of themselves, are abusive. Like a lot of things in life, its not what you’re doing, but how your doing it.

People use alchohol. As long as they don’t it at work, or to such excess that it impairs their judgement and work performance, most of us would say it was no-one’s business but their own. People also use alchohol to abuse themselves. As an employer your drinking only becomes my issue when it consistently affects my business. I would, and have, fired someone on the spot for drinking at work, after giving the requisite warnings and offers of support. If someone has an alchohol abuse problem, then that has to be dealt with in the workplace, by whatever means you choose as an employer.

Dealing with abuse is one thing, but by implementing a pre-emptive comprehensive ban of alchohol use, a company has to have a policy in place to deal with that, otherwise the ban makes no practical sense. Ditto drug use and abuse.

Delinquency and drug use are also being conflated. What’s true of alchohol is just as true of drugs. The difference, of course, is the illegality and illicitness of drugs. I’ve worked in higher ed, blue chips, NGOs, cooperatives, charities and the arts. I’ve seen people do just about everything with chemicals in one way or another. I’ve worked in cultures where chemical abuse of one from or another seemed almost obligatory, others with a policy of total non-toleration.

Again, I’ve sacked someone for smoking a joint at work. But I would no more sack an employee for smoking an after dinner joint, or taking a dodgy pill at a club than I would for knocking back a bottle of crap Californian chardonnay at a barbecue. I may have a style issue with them, but as long as they can do their job, it’s none of my business. But if I test them every Monday morning…..then I make it my business.

Chemicals, in whatever form, are not the issue here. Abuse and addiction are. By taking on the right to pre-emptively screen for the former, companies take on the responsibility for the latter. Companies have not identified a problem. They’ve created one.

There’s now massive research evidence that addiction and chemical abuse are largely genetically determined, and are therefore a societal, not just personal responsibility. None of this stuff has really filtered through yet to our generalised tabloid reality, but upto 80% of inmates in Western prisons are there because of verifiable genetic disorder.

When we criminalise drugs, we not only discriminate on the basis of particular chemical use, we are pathologising and criminalising genetic disorder, (or is it diversity ?).

When companies take it upon themselves to be in the frontline of this misguided, wrong-headed, hypocritical ‘war against drugs’, I don’t see how they can then get past their own moral and social responsibility for the situation they then create.

What really gets my goat though is the way this debate is served wrapped in a kind of moral invincibility masquerading as technological inevitability. It’s rampant bad faith, and craven abuse in the face of a genuine and all too real problem for many, many people.

But then, ignoring the point entirely never stopped anyone making money out of our own wilful stupidities….

And on a more important note, I think we, as a society, have to think very, very hard before instituting such policies in schools, and just what messages we may be giving our kids.

[selkieman on 22.06.06 at 08:28]

Having just read Mr Backeburg's post, I may be being slightly hard on him and his colleagues, for which you have my apology.

Doesn't change my arguement though.

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 08:30]

Selkie

"The unquestioned assumption behind it therefore is that it is right to have ongoing mandatory testing of workforces. Except for 'mission critical' jobs, I would question that assumption. If, as he says, over 50% of employees are failing his company's tests, this alone gives pause for thought. Just what do you do with this information ? Sack half your workforce ? Put them all through therapy ?"

Each company has to decide on its own standards. Some use random testing, some lean more on pre-employemt, others prefer reasonable cause whilst others just use post accident/incident methods. I agree with many of your points. The key has to be assesment of the reality of the situation for each individual followed by appropriate remedies. This is not about mass production "cookie cutter" processes...this is about taking a look at the reality of one of the major issues confronting our community. Work performance and work performance standards are the measures we employ...if substance abuse or dependence is negatively impacting these then it follows that good business practice is to deal with it. Testing is just one part of ruling substance abuse in or out. Diverson treatment programs for Doctors and Pilots reflect a 90%+ success rate...for good reason. They are built on sound clinical principles that work. For the record, if I wanted to make a bucket load of money I would march over the lines into the world of International Business...selling drug testing kits is hardly a money spinner...it is however a great tool for the clinincal work we do.

[kristen sousa on 22.06.06 at 09:14]

Well said Phil & Chris. Well said.

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 09:45]

I would go further than some of the previous posters: sacking someone who brings their "drug problem" into the workplace is essential. I can tell you that if I did not do this, I would instantly lose the respect and services of most of my hard-working colleagues and employees. This is the reality of smaller businesses. I cannot afford to die on the cross for the sins of others.

Also, I have no intention of insulting my workforce my having them undergo drug testing. As it has been pointed out, what they do outside of work makes no difference to me as long as it does not affect their on-the-job performance.

Perhaps the situation is different in larger companies who can afford counsellors etc to address such problems and where the impact of such of problem in the work-place can be temporarily contained. I remain extremely skeptical.

[Michael Taylor on 22.06.06 at 10:18]

Well said Selkieman. Too many people tend to oversimplify the argument when it comes to talking about drugs. Putting all of Bermuda's drug users in the same category is stupid, and suggesting companies have a right to fire them all is wrong.

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 10:19]

Mr. Backeburg writes in the Gazette that Bermuda should adopt American "solutions" to the problem of drugs in the work-place. This is somewhat ironic given that drug abuse is largely an American cultural import (not to mention that the "war on drugs" has been an utter failure). Decades of glorification of drug abuse in American film, TV, song etc. have seeped in the Bermuda psyche. It was inevitable.

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 10:33]

"The second point that needs to be made is that it is unlawful and unconstitutional to fire someone due to their having an medical disorder."

Is Mr. Backeburg saying that a Bermuda court would force me to re-instate a drug addict as an employee?

[Denis Pitcher on 22.06.06 at 10:44]

A very good post Selkieman.

As much as I believe certain individuals (ie. doctors, pilots) and other jobs where people's lives are held at risk at the potential of drug abuse, should submit themselves to drug testing, I do not condone testing for your average work place.

I liken it to an invasion of privacy and use the following analogy to make my point.

How does the government know you don't have a marijuana grow-op in your home? If you did, you very likely would be the cause of a drain on our society. How does the government know that anyone isn't performing such an illegal act? Very simply they don't.

Following along the lines of manditory drug testing. It may be likened to conducting weekly searches of your home, just to confirm that you are not partaking in such actions.

Would you condone police searching your premisis once a week to "ensure" your not partaking in criminal activity, even if you know your not?

How is it any different when it comes to the blood that courses through your veins? Or how about your hair? Each are your own private property.

When it comes down to it, in my belief, manditory drug testing for non-life critical positions, are an invasion of privacy. What people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. As Selkieman suggested, as long as it doesn't enter the workplace, it's none of our business.

If anything, we should we spending more time looking at our society as a whole and asking the question of why 50% are failing tests? Why are so many Bermudians feeling the need to turn to drugs in the first place? How many abuse legal and prescription drugs on top of those who abuse illegal? Are there not greater questions to be answered?

Can we for once be proactive as opposed to being reactive?

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 11:06]

Denis

I agree with the thrust of your post and can assure you that the team I work with is very clear on the types of policies we implement and the required balance of respect and dignity against the realities of substance abuse in the work place. Drug testing is but one small part of a much broader policy that has proactive prevention and best practice assessment and intervention strategies at its heart. In my view the testing piece is simply a clinical tool, much like cutting a piece of human tissue to have it biopsied...to rule in and rule out the exact nature and extent of the problem. Substance abuse and chemical dependency are recognised medical disorders. That is the field we work in. These disorders wreak havoc in our community and clearly people bring them to work. Research shows that approximately 80% of chemically dependent people have jobs ~ trust me, chemical dependency, like diabetes, does not discriminate. I suggest moving the focus away from the over-dramatised drug testing feature and into the discussion of what role do employers, supervisors and managers have in reducing the wide-ranging negative impact of substance abuse and chemical dependency in the work place? Without sound policy, practices and procedures I argue they will continue to have limited positive impact on a pronounced and insidious problem in our community; notwithstanding the manner in which these disorders hit company bottom lines. Who cares where it [the disorder] came from?...it is highly evolved and extremely costly to each of us physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

[SmokingGun on 22.06.06 at 11:11]

The simple fact is that Bermuda is a very small place with so many establishments catering to the tourism and visitors trades. In addition we have an extremely limited amount of human resources. As we live in a year round resort I'm surprised that we do not have a far more chronic problem with drug/alchohol abuse. Maybe we do and I'm just not as sensitive to it. Much like everything else in Bermuda things tend to get compounded and dealing with this must be very difficult indeed from all sides of the equation.

I'm just glad we do have people who's vocation is to try to resolve these issues. I give great credit to all those that choose to help those in need and show the necessary compassion that it takes. Wether they are counsel, friend or employer.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 22.06.06 at 11:50]

I think Mr. Backeberg IS trying to be proactive with this program. Yes, there is the drug testing aspect (which is pee, not blood or hair), to "catch" the users, but they are also offering therapy and couselling and trying to help the employer take care of their employees.
In the interest of disclosure, I will add that I do work for Benedict Associates as a witness on a part-time basis, but that is not the motivation for defending them.
They are trying to help. This isn't about making money from Drug Kits. This is about adressing a problem that is affecting our community and that's all it is about.

[save d cut on 22.06.06 at 14:32]

"As we live in a year round resort I'm surprised that we do not have a far more chronic problem with drug/alchohol abuse"

Smokin
Just imagine folks come here to enjoy the crisp, snappy delicious Dark n' Stormys. I have one everyday....pinch me, I AM in paradise.

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 14:48]

The purpose of my earlier question (which remains unanswered) is to establish whether Mr. Backeburg is resorting to scare tactics against employers such as myself.

The fact is that drug addicts are likely to be sacked for poor performance (eg. inattentiveness, repeated absence etc.). Bermuda justice is sometimes odd, but I cannot imagine a court upholding a so-called "medical condition" defense. But I am open to persuasion.

I am sorry if I am not being touchy-feely enough on this matter. Is it not enough that drug addicts ruin their own lives? Why should they be allowed to drag innocent people down with them?

[buzz on 22.06.06 at 15:00]

"sacking someone who brings their "drug problem" into the workplace is essential."

You have to put a statement like that in context. What happens if that same employee was your best producer, top performer, essential to the profitability and livelihood of your company, and if you fire that person, the company would suffer. You could say that his/her drug problem is not affecting his/her work, but what if that same employee approached his/her employer to ask for help with drug problem? Are you going to make exceptions, create double standards, and discriminate who gets company help and/or who gets fired based on their value to the company? I think the kind of programs that firms like Benedict and associates provides are meaningful options for employers and employees to deal with. it offers a choice/outlet for companies to deal with a very sensitive issue in a meaningful and proactive way. Businesses exist to make money and profit. And while they do not serve to be a social service agency for their employees, there has to be some obligation (simply out of humanity and social conscience) to at the very least provide some direction/assistance for an employee dealing with a drug problem. I'm not saying don't fire them if their work is compromised because of a drug problem, but make an attempt to help, instead of wash your hands clean of it. It's a broader social issue that we all need to work together to help address and solve. and in the end, we will all benefit from...

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 15:01]

Njegos ~ I apologise for not seeing your question on "scare tactics"? I am not sure how a Drug Free Work Place policy is a "scare tactic" but would be happy to review if you could explain further.

"Is it not enough that drug addicts ruin their own lives? Why should they be allowed to drag innocent people down with them?"

Point taken ~ DFWP is aimed in part as a prevention/deterrent tool for abuse and dependence as well an intervention process designed to support both employers and employees caught up with having to deal with the consequences of abuse and dependence. Sometimes termination of employment is an outcome and sometimes an employee can be supported to turn things around. I agree that people need to be held accountible; however I also believe people who are not well need to be given an opportunity to get well. The policies I have seen center on this. They are structured and based on sound clinical principles with supporting research. If you are a concerned employer then call (295 2070)me and I will be happy to meet on my time and go through the stages of policy development and how we do what we do. I invite people to explore the notion of this progressive social policy ~ it is aimed right at one of the major Public Health and Safety issues this country has to face.

[SmokingGun on 22.06.06 at 15:05]

Njegos - I totally agree with you. People have to be accountable for themselves but the problem in Bermuda is we are behind the eight ball from the get go. Just as save d cut enjoys his daily D&S I too enjoy my G&T. Entertainment tends to evolve around social drinking and often business as well. Jobs come easy so there's not much competition and when you have a lack of competition standards drop. It's a never ending insidious cycle. But it's a problem that's only going to get bigger so something does have to be done sooner rather than later.

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 15:22]

Chris:

Thanks for the reply. I have no doubt you are working very hard to devise solutions to this problem and that your approach may pay dividends in a large organisation which has the resources to help those who want to help themselves.

The situation is completely different in a small company. One bad apple can have a disproportionate impact on the workforce. I know this from bitter experience. That is why I am trying to understand where I stand under the law if I sack someone who allows drugs to affect their performance or that of their colleagues (why else would I sack them?). You appear to suggest that I would be on thin ice since you classify drug addiction as a "medical condition" and therefore would expect and be in favour of the courts re-instating that employee. If I understand your logic, it would be no different than if I sacked someone who had to disappear regularly for, say, chemo-therapy.

I'm sorry but all this business about "Just say NO" increasingly sounds like "Just say MAYBE".

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 15:32]

Smoking Gun:

My view is that an employer's responsibilities to the drug-free outweighs his obligations to the drugged-out. I respect those who are working tirelessly to combat drug addiction but I cannot accept that a company which sacks drug addicts somehow contributes to the problem. If anything, it sets a very stern message that there are some areas of our life that drugs cannot penetrate. Surely this is good thing.

[Teacher on 22.06.06 at 15:41]

Employers have a duty of care under the health and safety at work legislation to look after the welfare of their employees. It would be quite wrong to knowingly allow a worker with a drug issue to continue to operate within the company. Such a move could put fellow workers at risk from serious injury or in harms way. Knowingly allowing such people to work could also nullify any liability insurance held by the company should an incident occur. This could prove extremely costly in human and financial terms.

It is admirable to want to be part of the solution and help workers who find them selves in difficult circumstances, however, the welfare and employment prospects of all employees must be considered above the rights of individual employees.

[Bill Cook on 22.06.06 at 16:13]

Over the years I have employed many people and before that managed many more.
It was inevitable that many had drug or alcohol problems.
There are even more who are on prescription medication.
The criteria I tried to use was that if the employee performed his or her work satisfactory and did not odstruct otheres from doing likewise their personal indulgence was none of my business.
When it did I fired them.
I would say that in some instances where I saw a possible solution I used it too.
I once turned a young mans life around who had a drug problem so much so that he reformed and started his own successful company married his sons mother and is doing well.
I also had a secretarial bookeeper who was punctual effecient and pleasant and as I found was an alcoholic who had a glass of Vodka for breakfast and amazingly never faltered in performanance and it was with regret that I fired her as our office was located up a two storey building with a steel stairway and I feared she would stumble and injure herself badly.
The point of this is it is no simple task to make judgement on substance abuse in the workplace except where public safety is concerned of course.
I am not sure if it is anyones business if I drink or smoke weed if it has no effect on the task performed at work.
Government offices and civil servants may be another matter.

[tsol on 22.06.06 at 17:02]

Drug testing with most companies must be half-assed, because with the massive amount of white collar cocain abuse that takes place here every other person would be getting fired.

[J Galt on 22.06.06 at 17:32]

It would seem to me, and Chris please correct me if I'm wrong, you profit off of the addiction services your company offers, (nothing wrong with that), but you realize that a crack head isn't going to have the money to pay for your services so you want to force a company to pay so you can make the world a better place?

Secondly drug addiction is not a disease. That is more propagada so you and your ilk can force people and companies to pay for the mistakes of others.

[Teacher on 22.06.06 at 17:48]

I can not really subscribe to this idea that if its at home and not knowingly affecting me its fine. Public safety, efficient performance, product integrity, and employee morale are also legitimate interests which must be served. There is also too little said about the rights of employees who do NOT abuse drugs. Non-users have an absolute right to work in a safe working environment and to NOT have their jobs and benefits undermined by drug abusers!

Lots of people may do drugs, including the white collar workers! Whoever you are and what ever socio economic group you fall into, you cannot expect employers to take on the risks associated with an on going addiction.

[Michael Taylor on 22.06.06 at 18:07]

"Lots of people may do drugs, including the white collar workers! Whoever you are and what ever socio economic group you fall into, you cannot expect employers to take on the risks associated with an on going addiction."

Too right! We should fire the overeaters and sedentary ones too! We don't even need to do a test for them.

[silencedogood on 22.06.06 at 18:21]

I say let's place those with alcohol and drug problems in professions where they can turn their personal difficulties into productive advantages such as musicians, underwriters and brokers.

Bermuda needs many individuals to fill such roles and each seems to be enhanced by chemical dependency and/or tolerance. ;)

Seriously, it should be up to the employer whether or not they want to participate or fire the bums. Treatment, etc. is important to addressing the problem but if anyone should provide it it should be the government or community charities (including the church who seems to have forgotten this role)not employers.

The last thing employers need is yet another program designed to burden them with changing people's diapers.

[Teacher on 22.06.06 at 19:38]

It would be good to see churches pull togther to offer practical assistance to those that want it. I am sure Jesus would have put the new pew cushions on hold to help some of these folks. Seriously it is a big issue and one that does need trained, dedicated people who can offer time and help. Research shows that the voluntary sector is often more effective than government schemes.

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 20:48]

I appreciate Limey's lead on this topic. I would say that in large part the comments reflect much of the debate seen and heard throughout regions that comtemplate such polices. The crash helmet policy here in Bermuda in the 1970's sparked similar opposing views as does the current smoking in public places debate to name a few. These are all public health and safety issues. Limey's insinuation about the need for police participation is an interesting one as my guess is approximately 90% of people who abuse substances to the detriment of themselves and those around them never come in contact with the law! But I accept the stereotype he brings with his lead. There are literally millions of recovering alcoholics and addicts around the world. They range from significant politicians, fortune 500 CEO's, major athletes, celebrities, heroes to middle class hard working white and blue collar folk to those that for a variety of reasons will never hold a job or live in a real home. Addiction is a chronic and progressive mental disorder (Galt!) that is primary and if left unchecked ~ fatal. From a public health and safety standpoint it is one of our top three issues in Bermuda. Addiction (alcohol, nicotine,OTC's and prescriptions are all addictive chemicals)wreaks havoc as it rips open families, neighborhoods and communities. It transforms people into relentless secret keepers (aka liars) and it spreads through into the individual's family and friends and changes the way they live their lives...addiction slowly becomes the organising principle in the individual's life and those around the person have to adapt in typically unhealthy ways. The hallmark of addiction is denial and denial is infectious; in turns relatively healthy folk into secret keepers and in the world of psychology one is only as sick as their secrets...the research on addiction is astounding. The research on the truth about how substance abuse impacts companies is even more astounding! Approximately 80% of persons who suffer chemical dependency are currently employed. They bring their pathology to work with them. Denial operates in a curious social fashion such that everyone sees the addiction but wants to put it off as something else. The numbers are staggering in terms of health care costs alone...for example a chemically dependent person is 3.5 times more likely to go to the doctor's office than someone who is not (NIDA 2000). One option is to sit back and not intervene. Fair enough...if nothing changes then nothing changes and we can expect more of the same. Public Health and Safety policies such as DFWP necessitate a change in the public psyche and we all know humans despise change. You choose how you want to participate...many of the contributors today emphasise choice and I agree. But for those who want to look at something far more progressive and interesting then have a look at a best practice policy such as the one at Butterfield and Vallis. Is it perfect? No. Does it make a difference. Ask them. We all make money because that is the world we live in. There is no price on the look in a four year olds eyes when her mother comes back from treatment in recovery...I made the statement about fear of conflict. Addiction is a nasty game and not for the faint hearted. The problem is most people know someone who is in the throes of addiction...you work with them, you play sport with them, you go to church with them, your kids stay at their house and your son dates one..."they" said that "we" would never get smokers out of the workplace...fortunately "they" were wrong. Passion? You bet...

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 22.06.06 at 21:26]

"That is more propagada so you and your ilk can force people and companies to pay for the mistakes of others."

"You and your ilk"?

Jesus Christ, now I've heard it all.

Where does it say that they are forcing anyone? Who's FORCING the companies to do this? As far as I know, it's voluntary.

And, for the record, addiction IS a disease. Look it up, or ask someone who ACTUALLY knows.
Ask Chris. I'm sure there's a list of reference as long as my arm that he can post so that you can educate yourself on this.

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 21:46]

TRRUE (did you realise that is the acronym for your handle?):

You asked Galt: "Who's forcing the companies to do this?"

Chris implies that it is against the law to sack a drug addict because it is a "medical condition". That sounds like coercion to me.

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 22:10]

If an employee is falling short of performance standards as a result of a medical condition then I believe it is unconstitutional to fire them without giving them a chance to get well. Our unions certainly will back this up. Sound DFWP practice is built around early detection and identification of substance abuse and dependence. Once the problem has been identified the onus is on the employee to remedy their condition. Companies will often extend sick leave, leave without pay or even terminate with an option for said emplyee to return when they are fit for duty...it all depends on the severity of the consequences experienced in the workplace. For example we could argue that stealing or an inappropriate expression of anger by way of physical or sexual abuse (late stage behavioral signs of addiction) would be grounds to terminate. However, less intense but measurable performance issues probably are better served by good assessment and due diligence in managing the case. The policies are developed within the context of a particular company's organisational culture. They express how a progressive and prudent firm deals with the reality of substance abuse and dependence amongst its employees...no more and no less. It is clear and concise and the ground rules are viewed as fair and reasonable whereby everyone knows the ground rules and subsequent processes. No policy or a policy that is not comprehensive leads to inconsistent decisions being made and ultimately someone getting hurt in some shape or fashion. Prevention and Early Intervention in dealing with any type of illness has to be a benefit for all concerned. That is the essence of policies such as this. Addiction is all about smoke and mirrors framed in a web of denial and fear. Research has consistently shown the number one reason substance abuse and dependence continue to exact damage in the work place is because managers and supervisors claim they "would know if it was a problem and have it under control". DFWP bypasses the subjective application of theory and installs emprically researched work place standards and measures that are aimed at creating effective work place environments. If prevention and early intervention are viewed as key components for public health and safety then surely putting a policy in a place where people spend much of their awake time is worth a visit? The exact nature and extent of the policy is simply a matter for the stakeholders to decide...

[SmokingGun on 22.06.06 at 22:22]

"But for those who want to look at something far more progressive and interesting then have a look at a best practice policy such as the one at Butterfield and Vallis. Is it perfect? No. Does it make a difference. Ask them."

B&V should have started their program a lot sooner. As often's the case in Bermuda something terrible has to happen before management wakes up and realizes they need to do something about it.

[Chris Backeberg on 22.06.06 at 22:32]

As a matter of interest I wonder how many people in this country tonight are struggling with trying to make sense of the illogical and oft times senseless choices and behavior made by people who abuse and are dependent on alcohol and other drugs? Many I am sure are really hoping that it (the problems they are experiencing) will just go away. Most have little to no idea how to manage it and yet they will pack their problems away and show up at work tomorrow, hoping no one will notice the pain they bear. Someone who is caught in the web of their own or another's addiction has to deal with a progressively worsening obsession about what to do...DFWP is one part of how to access the recovery process...believe it or not.

[selkieman on 22.06.06 at 22:55]

After a long, hard day at the (drug-free) coalface I come back to find the pot’s been boiling away like billy-o. There are lots of interesting and pertinent points being made, and I’d like to pick a few of them up. Apologies if I go on a bit, but it’s been a long, boring day grouting a black-tiled bathroom for a pal. I might be a bit tile-crazy.

Having read your post Chris. I’ll take it as a given that you, and perhaps even your company have the highest intentions with this DFW. (However, the road to hell and all that… of which more later). Also, I wasn’t actually thinking of you making money out drug testing kits, rather Big Tobacco and Booze, Government drug-based tax revenues and the international crime-drug economy. And as much as I laud your heartfelt rejection of the big business’ 30 pieces of silver, those three are where the real dosh is being made. I was clumsily trying to highlight the hypocrisy that lives off ignorance here, rather than having a pop at you.

There’s fault line running through the whole debate around drug abuse and dependency which borders on the societally schizoid, and nowhere is that more true than in the role our Governments play in the regulation and taxation of the drugs trade. The two main legal drugs in the West, tobacco and drink, are also amongst the most poisonous, pernicious and addictive that we use. Our Governments make a lot of money of out our addictions to them. By criminalising the rest, they also directly and indirectly contribute to the organised crime of the drugs cartels, and the disorganised crimes of a crack head. Afghanistan will produce a record opium crop this year, over 60% of which will end up on the UK heroin market. Western policy has created the conditions for this to happen. The Taliban stopped it….. Many European governments have seen the writing on the wall here, and are slowly moving to some greater or lesser degree of de-criminalisation and taxation of drugs.

Bermuda is in a different position. Its drug policies are heavily influenced by those of the US. And the ‘war on drugs’ is like the ‘war on terrorism’, an eternal war against a non-existent ‘enemy’, who in fact turns out to be ourselves. Classic paranoid projection. And at $500 an oz for grass on the island, somebody, somewhere very close to you is making a lot of money. Not so classic profitable transference. Whilst there has some discussion from some PLP members on the de-criminalisation of cannabis, the general debate about drugs on the island is heavily influenced by a rather purple-hued hysteria of that ever-fashionable group in Bermuda – The Vocal Minority. Most of the rest stay quiet, presumably too stoned to get the wherewithal together to do anything.

I’ve talked a lot about drugs there, so I think I’ll do a bit more.. I have a problem with ‘drugs’ being used as a blanket term. It puts a whole lot of very different chemicals, with different uses, effects, side-effects and so on into one very emotionally loaded basket. It also ignores the cultural and social uses to which those chemicals are put, and how and to what purposes people use them. It labels drug-users as deviant, and does not distinguish between use and abuse. Many of you on here talk as if the only thing you can do with drugs is abuse them.

Let me disabuse you of that. One personal example is my experience of ecstasy. Having vowed that I would never put a pill, powder or potion that wasn’t from my GP inside me, (and maybe not even then), I succumbed during the UK’s 2nd Summer of Love’ in ’89, after 15 years going out on the clubbing scene. I had one of the most positive experiences of my life, and I learned something profound about being human and humble. What’s more that has become part of me. I don’t need to take pills to be aware of that way of being. For those of you with a religious bent, you could say it was a gift from God. In a pill…

My point is that a lot of people use many different drugs in ways which, from any viewpoint, can only be seen as having positive value, both to that person and their society. If, as BA’s figure say, 50% are testing positive for drugs, this does not mean they are by any means all drugs addicts. Much as Bermuda can be a bit weird sometimes, I’m really not seeing that kind of evidence on the streets, in homes, and offices. Pity though it is, even the recent antics in Parliament can’t be attributed to a new consignment of high-quality Charlie. I’m not saying either that we should have a drug free for all, but I do think we should deal with this reality of use by large numbers of people, and separate it clearly from chemical abuse and dependence. I’m saying we should stop being two-faced and po-faced about the whole issue. Either you want to catch and label everyone who uses ‘drugs’, legal or illegal, or you want to offer a therapeutic service to individuals who are damaging themselves and their society. You can’t do both, They’re antithetical projects.

Against this backdrop of political denial and profit, vested minority ignorance, and just plain old ignorance, organisations like BA worry me. Not because I don’t believe in the efficacy of their techniques or their positive humanistic intentions. Nor that I think companies, and especially bigger enterprises, don’t bear, share and therefore have a responsibility for social, economic and ecological issues. I do.

My real problem is with the double–headed nature of the enterprise. It is one thing to have policies in place to deal with chemical abuse and addiction, but of another order of magnitude to begin actively targeting individuals’ private substance use without full and open debate about the consequences of that. To describe the Drug Free Workplace as progressive social policy is both rampant Stalinist utopianism, and woefully misguided. Is it being used as a means of social control or as a route to individual and group empowerment ?

And like most high-falutin moral questions, it comes down to financial bottom-line realities for most employers – severance and recruitment costs versus the perceived worth of that individual, versus the costs of recruiting and training someone else. Many companies do have progressive HR policies, but very many don’t, others are simply vile. But whatever corporate complexion your dealing with, when any of them enter this area of social engineering, there’s a whole can of worms opens. Particularly in the present social and political climate.

Drug tests cannot distinguish between use and abuse, Even though there maybe as you say Chris, a whole set of techs to establish the depth and nature of a problem, (if any), that some individual may have, by focussing on ‘drugs’ you undermine your own humanistic agenda. The issue is not chemicals, but addiction, which is a many-headed hydra. Because you can test and measure one aspect of this monster in our midst, i.e., drugs use, that gives a spurious credence to what is seen as the ‘drug problem’. The PROBLEM is that many people feel so disassociated from life and themselves that they’ll do anything to escape that reality, to the destruction of all and sundry, sometimes with exquisite slowness and tomaximum effect. Drug abuse is only one way to do that. Is it really the business of business to be directly and actively involved in this ? And if it is, how and by whom is this to be regulated ? Is it worth permanently stigmatising and labelling, from your own admission, a very large section of society who are not addicts, but users ? And the purpose of this would be ?

Now why does the parable of the elephant and blind men come to mind ?

[Njegos on 22.06.06 at 22:55]

If an employee is falling short of performance standards as a result of a medical condition then I believe it is unconstitutional to fire them without giving them a chance to get well. Our unions certainly will back this up.

I see. What you are saying is that employer must issue a warning and then take the risk that the drug addiction will worsen and disrupt morale and productivity in the workplace. How long should the employer tolerate this state of affairs? What is the recommended wait for a turnaround? A fortnight? A month? 3 months? 6 months? All of this sounds totally unrealistic to me.

[Bill Cook on 23.06.06 at 06:18]

Unless one joins the Police or Fire Service where some have been off for several years with full pay of course as I understand it?

[J Galt on 23.06.06 at 09:32]

"Addiction is a chronic and progressive mental disorder (Galt!) that is primary and if left unchecked ~ fatal. From a public health and safety standpoint it is one of our top three issues in Bermuda. Addiction (alcohol, nicotine,OTC's and prescriptions are all addictive chemicals)wreaks havoc as it rips open families,"

Like people addicted to nicotine? Smokers have a disease? So my great Aunt who managed to quit smoking after 40 years, with out any help, what would that be? Is she cured? Is that a miracle? ( Can I get an amen Elvis?)

Chris come on you want to help people that's great, but you want other people to pay for your services. You do this by repeating your mantra, Addiction is a disease, and by doing so you convince people they are wrong for not paying to help, its their fault that the four year olds eyes have to see her mother addicted to (insert your favorite fake disease)

"There is no price on the look in a four year olds eyes when her mother comes back from treatment in recovery"

Yes there is the price is your bill.

"I believe it is unconstitutional to fire them without giving them a chance to get well. Our unions certainly will back this up"

1. The union makes money off of the workers dues, regardless of his performance on the job, the union gets their due every week as long as the worker draws a paycheck. Hence if companys where to fire the addict, the union would lose money.

2. If you think is unconstitutional to fire someone, what about a person, who has the cure and refuses to help another in NEED, becasue they can't pay for their services.

Don't ignore and deny the reality of what you are and what you do Chris, you profit off of the addiction of others, and if you couldn't make a living doing what you do you wouldn't (there is nothing wrong with that)but you are trying to make your product viable in the market, by forcing others pay for it, and thats wrong.

[Chris Backeberg on 23.06.06 at 10:20]

Galt ~ I pay for all the services I receive as people pay for the services I extend...we provide services that are aimed at improving people's quality of life...methods of payment include private pay, insurance coverage, EAP, scholarships, charitable funding, sliding scales and pro bono cases...if my services were not viable I would probably march over into another line of work and "sell" something else...that is the world we are living in...easy does it my friend...I am okay and you are okay :)

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 23.06.06 at 10:41]

No, she's not cured. It's not a miracle. You never get rid of an addiction. I haven't drank in about 16 years. Does this mean I'm not addicted? Nope.
One is still too many, a thousand is still too much.

But today? I'm not gonna drink (or smoke! On day 4 of it... not enjoying this at ALL!), and hopefully not tomorrow.

As for the rest of it:

Whatever you say, dude. I don't have the energy to battle this ignorance. Someone else take it.

[Chris Backeberg on 23.06.06 at 10:46]

Galt ~ just so that we can be on the same page...if addiction is not a mental health disorder then what is it? More importantly, how do you treat it and where did you draw this experience with remedying chemical dependency from? Who knows...we may be on the same page and we are caught in semantics?

[Darkside on 23.06.06 at 10:47]

Elvis,

I presume you mean ... one is too many and a thousand is not enough.

[Micahel Taylor on 23.06.06 at 11:00]

Chris Backeberg,

Would you consider addiction a self-inflicted disorder or a genetic pre-disposition, or sometimes one, sometimes the other? I think many people have different ideas about who should pay for either case. Many people believe its sometimes one sometimes the other but have become jaded with professionals constantly using language which paints the picture of someone who catching addiction like it was Malaria, while rarely, if ever acknowledging that some people just made bad decisions.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 23.06.06 at 11:01]

Yeah.. that's what I meant...

I repeat... day four, not smoking... *grin*

[Chris Backeberg on 23.06.06 at 11:37]

Michael ~ point taken and trust me, I have experienced the "mixed message" and convolution of who needs to be accountible. For the record, my practice is based on 40 years of personal and professional experience. I draw my theory and practice from the Minnesota Model and its continuing evolution of research and development. I relate entirely to the manner in which this model defines and articulates the exact nature and extent of addiction and, more importantly how it expresses treatment and recovery interventions that are aimed right at the very point you make about accountibility. My peers work around the world at different treatment agencies that operate along the treatment/recovery continuum. Addiction also lives along a continuum from mild to severe and therefore the model's interventions are geared at addressing the progressive nature of both addiction and subsequent recovery. As with all things in life, addiction is a systemic issue and therefore multi-variable by its very nature. The model I believe in as a foundation from which the team I work with operates expresses the muli-modal variability by way of incorporating a multi-discilinary team approach. That is the product I "sell" in the "market"...I make no apologies for that.

[SmokingGun on 23.06.06 at 11:45]

J Galt - too funny that you want to dump on someone who makes a living helping clean up everyone elses mess. How do you feel about the fact that our Government Minister responsible for controlling abuse of drugs and alcohol decided to get in to the Rum Importing business to enhance his living?

[Phil on 23.06.06 at 13:53]

SmokingGun

How do you feel about the fact that our Government Minister responsible for controlling abuse of drugs and alcohol decided to get in to the Rum Importing business to enhance his living?

It's not illegal to drink rum, and most people who drink it do not abuse it. So what's the big deal?

[Njegos on 23.06.06 at 14:19]

I wonder how long it will be before every human weakness (addiction, laziness, lack of concentration, outright stupidity) is diagnosed as some kind of mental or physical disorder. We have to draw the line somewhere and that line is personal responsibility. Some people may be genetically disposed to addiction. Fine. So they must learn to avoid alcohol, drugs etc. just as a diabetic must learn to shun cakes, sweets etc.

Chris:

Most companies cannot afford to carry drug addicts/alcoholics on the payroll in the hope they may recover. You must be aware of this. That is why no court would ever side with a drug addict in a dismissal case. Imagine the awful precedent especially if the problem is as widespread as you say.