On average, about 9 percent of U.S. workers drink in ways that contribute to absenteeism, higher health care costs and lost productivity, according to an analysis of government data. But in some industries, the toll can be much higher. At 15%, hospitality tops the list of industries with a higher than average prevalence of alcohol abuse problems, followed closely by the construction industry at 14.7%, according to a new report on alcohol abuse by industry issued by Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems at The George Washington University Medical Center.

In addition, some demographics experience more problems than others. More than 18 percent of young workers between the ages of 18 and 25 have an alcohol-related problem, compared to just seven percent of workers 26 and older, and in every industry segment, men experienced more problems than women. For example, "Researchers found that men working in hospitality and construction are approximately 50 percent more likely to have an alcohol-related problem than women in the same industry. In wholesale trade, men are almost three times more likely to have an alcohol problem than women."

Prevalence of alcohol problems by industry segment
Hospitality.................Male 17.4%....Female 12.6%....Overall 15.0%
Construction................Male 15.2%....Female 10.0%....Overall 14.7%
Wholesale Trade.............Male 14.6%....Female 05.3%....Overall 11.9%
Professional................Male 13.3%....Female 07.1%....Overall 10.6%
Retail Trade................Male 13.4%....Female 06.2%....Overall 09.7%
Finance & Real Estate.......Male 11.2%....Female 07.6%....Overall 09.2%
Manufacturing...............Male 09.5%....Female 06.5%....Overall 08.6%
Transportation/Utilities....Male 09.1%....Female 04.8%....Overall 08.2%
Information/Communication...Male 12.7%....Female 04.8%....Overall 08.1%
Agriculture.................Male 08.7%....Female 01.9%....Overall 07.2%
Other Services..............Male 08.9%....Female 03.8%....Overall 06.4%
Education/Social Services...Male 09.4%....Female 04.3%....Overall 05.4%
Public Administration.......Male 06.4%....Female 04.1%....Overall 05.3%

Estimating costs by industry
Ensuring Solutions states that problem drinking is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, killing 85,000 Americans annually and draining $185 billion from the nation’s economy every year. Yet it is a problem that often stays under the radar with few of the problem drinkers identified for help. Researchers suggest this is a major public health issue, and one that employers should take the lead in addressing. similar to the way employers have led the way in addressing other public health issues such as obesity and diabetes. And as with most health problems, awareness, education, and early intervention are critical to changing behavior.

To help employers understand the workplace costs associated with alcohol abuse, Ensuring Solutions has devised a series of online alcohol cost calculators for businesses , for health plans, and for kids, as well as a return on investment calculator.

Using a hospitality industry example of 5,000 employees, here are sample results:

Likely number of problem drinkers in your workforce...458
Likely number of employees’ family members who are problem drinkers...621
Likely number of excess work days lost to sickness, injury and absence because of problem drinking ...159 Days Per Month
Cost of excess lost days per year...$266,052
Likely alcohol-related health care costs...$1,962,068
Excess emergency room visits...121
Excess days in the hospital...56
Emergency department and hospital costs...$441,383

Treatment options
Ensuring Solutions offers the full report in PDF: Workplace Screening and Brief Intervention: What Employers Can and Should Do About Excessive Alcohol Use. Their website also offers guidance and many resources for addressing alcohol abuse in the workplace. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) also offers many tools and programs

And don't forget your EAP. DOL suggests that use of an EAP is the most effective treatment modality:

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) are generally the most effective vehicle for addressing poor workplace performance that may stem from an employee’s personal problems, including the abuse of alcohol or other drugs. EAPs are an excellent benefit to employees and their families and clearly demonstrate employers’ respect for their staff. They also offer an alternative to dismissal and minimize an employer’s legal vulnerability by demonstrating efforts to support employees.

Posted by Julie Ferguson on March 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ten Critical Mistakes Made by Supervisors Dealing with Federal Employees in Trouble at Work - This is an excellent article by Bob Gilson, a consultant and employee relations advisor who authors articles at FedSmith.com, an information portal for sources of information impacting the federal community. This concise and sensible list is one that should be mandatory reading for all with supervisory responsibility, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector.

Bob attributes many of the supervisory mistakes that he's witnessed to poor training, something we would concur with. He labels each item on his list as a "critical mistake" and elaborates considerably on each - but here is a summary of the ten mistakes that he identifies:

• Failing to Set Clear Expectations or to Regularly Reinforce Them
• Letting Problems You're Aware of Fester before Addressing Them
• Failure to Communicate With People with Problems
• Failure to Recognize the Importance of Due Process
• Taking the Matter Personally
• Moving Too Quickly to Formal Action
• Playing "GOTCHA" With Troublesome or Difficult People
• Waiting Too Long to Get Professional Help
• Unwillingness to See a Problem Through to a Resolution
• Worrying Too Much About Over-Touted Disincentives to Taking Action

This list is a follow-on to a prior article about Ten Critical Mistakes Made by Federal Employees in Trouble, a candid look at mistakes employees often make to aggravate their troubles when they have problems on the job - another article well worth a read. More articles authored by Bob can be found in the Federal Manager's Toolbox.

Posted by Bill Danylik on January 8, 2008 at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

About 2 out of every 5 workers has been romantically involved with a co-worker, according to a recent survey on workplace romance by Spherion. And despite 41% of the survey takers saying that they thought that a work romance might interfere with their job security or hinder advancement, nearly 2 out of 5 respondents said they would still consider becoming involved with a coworker.

While we hate to strike a sour note on this day of wine and roses, it's a simple fact. Work romance can be fraught with problems for the employer. Witness the sad spectacle of astronaut Lisa Nowak, an example of a work romance gone frightfully awry. While it is likely that Nowak's problems go far deeper than the romance, her employers at NASA must be wondering if there was anything they could have done or been alert for before things took such a terrible pass. (See What makes an astronaut crack?)

In Spherion's survey, 42 percent of workers said they conduct their romance openly, while 35 percent favor keeping things quiet. Whether overt or covert, there are many, many reasons why work romances can be a headache to the employer. In a large organization, the effect on coworkers may be negligible, but in a small workplace, romance between workers can hurt morale and cause discomfort, distractions, and conflict. Much worse can ensue if it is a relationship between a manager and a non-manager. And when romances hit the skids, even more problems can ensue - loss of valued employees and potential lawsuits due to harassment or discrimination, for example.

While most employers tend to discourage office romance, few out and out forbid it. In 2006, SHRM conducted a survey on workplace romance that found that:

"Only 9 percent of HR professionals surveyed say dating among employees is prohibited, and in 2001 and 2005 more than 70 percent of organizations did not have formal written or verbal policies dealing with romantic liaisons between employees."

Rather than prohibiting dating or romance between co-workers, most employers seem to be taking things on a case-by-case basis. An article on office romance in Inc.com profiles one employer with this approach:

"We don't have a specific policy," said Lisa Stone, human relations director at New Media Strategies, an Arlington, Va.-based online marketing firm. "We have an environment that cultivates relationships, and every now and then, Cupid strikes."

According to Vault, 58% of companies will only interfere if the relationship has created a problem at work, similar to the approach New Media Strategies takes, according to Stone. On average, the firm's employees are 28 years old and work between 40 and 45 hours a week -- factors that have contributed to at least a handful of romances among the ranks of the seven-year-old company, including one engagement, Stone said."

Not all work romances are problematic—the Spherion study points out that twenty-five percent of workplace relationships eventually lead to marriage.

Related reading

Seven rules of office romance

Romance in the office can lead to marriage or to a lawsuit

Love at work causes concern - Employers should watch for safety

Posted by ESI on February 14, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Is it time for your organization to do more to encourage employees to quit smoking? Smoking tobacco is still the number one killer of individuals in the US and associated illnesses cost billions for American businesses. Here is your chance to take advantage of a nation-wide effort. Every year, the third Thursday November -- November 16th this year -- is the Great American Smokeout. Smokers are encouraged to give up smoking for 24 hours in the hope that this head start will support a long-term behavior change.

Resources from the American Cancer Society are available and community events you can tag onto pop-up across the nation. The CDC also offers many free resources for you to use in your efforts.
This can be a great company-wide event to improve the health of your employees. But is it really a company's place to promote smoking cessation? Citing benefits for employers and employees, many states have passed laws requiring workplaces to be smoke free. The Lung Association offers a Worksheet to determine State laws that may apply to your organization.

Here are some benefits of a smoke-free workplace as identified by the American Cancer Society:

Benefits for the Employees

• A smoke-free environment helps create a safe, healthful workplace.
• Workers who are bothered by smoke will not be exposed to it at the worksite.
• Smokers who want to quit may have more of an incentive to do so.
• Smokers may appreciate a clear company policy about smoking at work.
• Managers are relieved when a process for dealing with smoking in the workplace is clearly defined

For the Employer

• A smoke-free environment helps create a safe, healthful workplace.
• Direct health care costs to the company may be reduced.
• A well-planned and carefully implemented effort by the employer to address the effect of smoking on employees' health and the health of their families shows the company cares.
• Employees may be less likely to be absent from work due to smoking related illnesses.
• Maintenance costs go down when smoke, matches, and cigarette butts are eliminated in facilities.
• Office equipment, carpets, and furniture last longer.
• The risk of fires is lower.
• It may be possible to negotiate lower health, life, and disability insurance coverage as employee smoking is reduced.

Creating a Smoke-Free Work Policy

Creating a Smoke-Free Policy is a good way to clearly present your organization's position on this practice in the workplace. For model policies check out The American Cancer Society

Making a policy successful may depend on a few preparations:

• Find out what your employees want. You may discover that employees object to co-workers smoking outside the front door or beneath open windows. Second-hand smoke is a consideration when identifying smoking places on company property.
• Announce the no smoking policy ahead of its implementation.
• Give details of how things will change and allow employees time to adjust to new rules. If possible, specify a starting date.
• Help employees kick the habit by offering a smoking-cessation program.
• Offer access to support through a health professional or your EAP. It is proven that groups of individuals who quit together offer each other support, and this can often enhance success.

While eliminating smoking in the workplace is a good start, refusing to hire smokers all together is not an option for most organizations. More than half the states in the US have "lifestyle discrimination" laws which prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their use of tobacco or other lawful products. And for many employers, limiting the potential labor pool by instituting a blanket hiring ban on a class of workers for a lifestyle issue isn't feasible. Many fire and police departments and some companies are indeed banning smoking entirely—on or off the job—and refusing to hire smokers. Here's how Jon Coppelman at Workers Comp Insider wrote about this.

The final word, it's always advisable to look into your state laws to determine your best course of action.

Posted by Tina Simson, Vice President, Regional Director on November 9, 2006 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

On the day after election day, politics may still be percolating as specific races go through a post mortem, or worse, recounts. This is a topic that may likely engage your workers - hot elections and controverrsial political issues can and do carry over to water cooler debates. In a recent poll conducted by AP-Pew Research, nearly half of all respondents, or 43 percent, said they debate political issues at work.

Here's a round-up of some news and web stories that discuss both employer and employee rights related to politics in the workplace.

Arthur Susser of Littler Mendelson, a national employment and labor law firm, discusses the fact that workers are often surprised to learn that their employers can restrict political expression at work. He suggests some steps that employers can take to restrict workday activities to business pursuits, even in states with laws protecting political expression.

Geoff Williams of Entrepreneur.com suggests that, despite how pervasive politics has become, we should take the advice of experts and keep it out of work or " ... risk an entire Pandora's box of problems spilling out to the office place." He offers 5 tips on defusing political passions before they start at the workplace.

Susan M. Heatherfield of Human Resources at About.com discusses the reasons why it's best to nix political discussions at work. She also offers some helpful tips for supervisors who become aware of potentially negative political discussions. She suggests that politics should be treated like any other situation that holds the potential for escalating into conflict.

Workplace Fairness discusses employee rights and the limitations of the law in relation to retaliation for political activity.

Margarita Bauza has a story entitled Working with politics: Experts advise treading lightly and knowing office policies before speaking on the issues in Detroit Free Press:

Typically, company policies addressing political speech deal with displaying signs of support and soliciting donations, said Jennifer L. Berman, an attorney who has drafted numerous workplace policies dealing with political speech. Berman is managing director of CBIZ Human Capital Services in Chicago.

"In a private workplace, you can prohibit any type of speech you want," Berman said. "But that would be a little bit stronger than what most companies want to do."

No office is immune to rules regarding political speech -- even political offices. Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith, a Democrat, prohibits assistant prosecutors from supporting opponents. There is language to that effect in their union contract.

Nemeth said such policies are rare and potentially violate free-speech rights. But they at least define what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace, she said.

Michelle Kara of The Mercury has a story advising caution when talking politics at work:

Peter Susser, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Littler Mendelson, the nation's largest employment and labor law firm, encourages employers to "ensure that work environments are safe, are free of hostility and conducive to productivity" by "protecting employees from being badgered or pressured by overzealous political advocates."

Susser said many people wrongly assume the Constitution and the Bill of Rights entitle them to express their political views whenever and wherever they wish. In fact, "workers at private-sector companies that are employed at will can be terminated for their political beliefs as long as their dismissal complies with employment statutes and does not run afoul of other state-law guarantees," he stated in a news release.

Posted by ESI on November 8, 2006 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

In a few weeks we will all be celebrating National Bosses Day! Of course, this holiday in mid October is more an affectation of the greeting card companies than an act of congress. And since the number one reason employees leave their jobs is unresolved conflict with a supervisor, one wonders just how many bosses will be getting flowers on October 16th. Bosses have been bullying employees since the beginning of work but this "management style" takes its toll on workers and the organization. Intimidated employees are not loyal and productive. Pure employee frustration sprouts Bad Boss Contest websites where a "can you top this" race ensues with bad boss stories posted and winners selected. Or employees can take the "Is Your Boss a Psycho" quiz to see just how bad things are. While these sites relieve stress with a bit of humor, they do nothing to stem the practice.

One of the main reasons bullying continues in the workplace is that workers are intimidated and threatened with their livelihood and won't speak up for themselves. But the most egregious reason it continues is that organizations tolerate it. On the surface bullying bosses may be good producers or they keep a work team in order. Bullying can humiliate and degrade but it also gets results. What does it matter that employees are sick and dejected if they produce?

Stories we hear from HR managers support this theory. Bad behavior is tolerated until it gets to a certain level and then the EAP is called to help a supervisor manage his or her anger. Here are some examples we've run into:

Sally a sales supervisor, blew up at a client last week stomping her feet using language that was insulting and intimidating. When asked if this was rare, the manager said, "No, Sally is a great employee a top producer. She is like that all the time with her team, but never a customer...we can't put up with this"

Harold lambasted and ridiculed an employee in front of her work team. When she walked away to compose her self, Harold followed her into the ladies room and continued screaming about her incompetence...the CEO heard the exchange. "Was this out of character for Harold?" we asked. "No" HR said, "Harold has a long history of volatile behavior but this is the first time he followed anyone into the rest room. We think he crossed the line"

Chris works long hours often staying past 8:00 PM. He penalizes any employee on his team that leaves the office before he does. Employees who leave to attend to their personal lives are scorned for days and given the silent treatment. Their questions are not answered and their work criticized. If employees leave, Chris stays later the next day. Management thinks Chris has a dedicated team, when complaints of intimidation were lodged; the EAP was called in to help team members learn to work more collaboratively.

Pat told his employees that he kept a shot gun in the trunk of his car. If things got out of hand or employees complained about their work, he could always get the gun and take care of things. Several employees complained but HR didn't really think Pat was serious, they were checking with the EAP to see if this was illegal!

Consistent progressive discipline with abusive and volatile bosses is essential. Employees can also learn ways to deal with ongoing harassment. But management must step up and take responsibility for colluding with and condoning bully behavior. The message sent to the organization is that the individual is expendable and dehumanizing behavior is tolerated.

There are all kinds of economical reasons to address this pervasive problem but creating an environment where human respect and decency is paramount is the only important one.

Posted by Tina Simson, Vice President, Regional Director on September 29, 2006 at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Corporate downsizing is in the news so often that one more layoff announcement hardly draws notice. But, last week, some creative folks down at the Radio Shack headquarters in Texas were able to add a newsworthy twist to the story.

They fired 400 people...and they did it via e-mail. True, company officials had previously met with employees en masse to let them know that layoffs were imminent. Plus, employees could go to the company's intranet site and ask questions. (Maybe that was their way of using high tech to create high touch?) Then, a few days later, the emails went out to those who were terminated.

Did we mention that for an added ironic twist, all this occurred shortly before Labor Day?

In news stories, company officials defended the use of e-mail as both fast and private. But there was nothing private about the public outcry that followed—news outlets from Maine to California have pounced on this story, calling the company to task for being "dehumanizing," "callous," "cruel" and "chicken-livered." We liked this sentiment from a Forbes article on the matter:

"The way a company ends its relationship with employees says a lot about it. Some say it's just as important as the beginning of the professional relationship."

No easy way, but best practices can soften the blow
In our role as an EAP, we find ourselves working with managers and employees when terminations and downsizings occur. Unfortunately, we've gained a lot of experience in this area. We would join the chorus that is proclaiming that e-mail is not the best way to do this sort of thing. While terminations are never pleasant, there are some best practices to follow to ensure that affected employees are afforded the maximum in fairness and dignity.

First, if the termination is based on performance, make sure that the employee has been adequately warned, that warnings have been well documented, and that the employee has been given ample opportunity to rectify the situation. Many employers conduct an administrative referral to their EAP at this stage. Done properly, an administrative referral will resolve and head off more than half of all performance-based terminations. If the termination is part of a downsizing, there should be an announcement ahead of time that layoffs are planned.

If termination is the only solution, whether for performance or for general business reasons, the following steps will prove helpful:

1. Schedule the termination meeting early in the day, and during the week; avoid terminating employees right before a holiday or a weekend.
2. Have all paperwork ready. The final paycheck and all severance and benefit information need to be delivered at the termination meeting.
3. The employee's manager and a representative from HR should attend so that you are able to cover all issues and questions.
4. Be brief. Be compassionate. Allow the employee to vent his or her feelings, but do not engage in a negotiation or argument. Plan in advance what you are going to say and choose your words carefully.
5. Extend every reasonable courtesy to the employee. Give the person an opportunity to say goodbye to coworkers. Should the employee become angry or abusive, don't get upset, simply escort the worker from the building.
6. After all questions are answered and all paperwork completed, wish the person well and help them assemble their belongings and leave.

Firing someone is always a difficult task, but following these basic rules will help it go better. We don't advocate e-mail as a good termination strategy!

Posted by Jim Walter, President, CEO on September 8, 2006 at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Few would argue that stress in the workplace has increased in recent years and that the relationship between employers and employees is changing dramatically. There is less loyalty on both sides of the equation. The result of these trends is that employees are less satisfied. And that dissatisfaction can affect productivity.

Randstand USA a global provider of employment services conducts extensive research on business issues, workers and the workplace. Their 2006 Employee Review was recently published and brings to light some interesting findings.

The study concludes that there is a growing level of employee dissatisfaction. The data indicate that many employees believe their career advancement is non-existent. Work/life is out of whack and workers feel unvalued. And they expect management to fix the problems. Add to all that the facts that there is a large discrepancy between what employees want and what managers believe they are doing to solve the problems.

"When it comes to career development, 73 percent of employers said fostering employee development is important, but only 49 percent of employees said leadership is adhering to this practice. Likewise, 86 percent of employees cited feeling valued as an important factor for happiness while only 37 percent said it exists in their job."

This inconsistency can adversely affect productivity. Employees become less loyal and more disgruntled. While not willing to leave a position in uncertain times, the employee stays with a job they dislike and productivity suffers from low morale.

Generational Differences
The survey also shows diverse opinions from the different generations in the workplace. Generation X and Y are looking to develop their career and learn more skills. They seek personal growth while overwhelmingly Boomers and Matures are looking for recognition and appreciation.

When it comes to taking time off, the Generations X and Y are almost twice as likely to take a day off to relieve stress and almost 4 times more likely to take a sick day for personal errands. The Matures by far take the least time off.

In a stressful business climate it is essential to understand the varied demographics of your population and to listen and believe what your employees are telling you either openly or with their behavior (increased absenteeism or turnover). Open discussions and efforts to respond are valuable not only for morale but also for productivity and the bottom line.

Posted by Tina Simson, Vice President, Regional Director on September 4, 2006 at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There are a few simple truths about absenteeism.

The first is that almost all employers suffer a substantial loss of productivity because employees are absent from work. Unplanned absence due to family issues, workplace injuries, and non-work-related injuries and illness can add up to as much as a 10 percent productivity loss for some employers. A recent survey on absenteeism by CCH found that "...unscheduled absences cost companies $660 per employee per year, up from $610 in 2004, in salary costs alone—never mind the expense of paying for overtime or a temporary replacement." What's more, the study found that personal illness accounts for just 35 percent of unscheduled absences.

The second important fact is that trying to control absenteeism can be a daunting task. Lost work days fall into many different categories: family and medical leave, workers' comp injuries, and non-work injuries and illnesses all contribute to the mix. These varying types of absences fall under different programs, insurance coverage, and legal umbrellas. Employers that operate in multiple states have the added burden of dealing with a variety of local regulations. And typically, in many organizations, the responsibility for managing lost time is split among different departments. FMLA and short-term disability is usually turfed to HR, while workers comp can fall to the financial people or a safety officer.

You wind up with nobody looking after the whole problem, and nobody knowing exactly how much the bucket is leaking.

Plugging the leaks
There are four best practice principles that can help. If your organization hasn't adopted them, you may want to consider doing it now.

First, get a lost time measurement tool. There are several vendors who offer sophisticated absence management information systems for very large organizations, but for the small to mid-size employer an Excel spreadsheet can work just fine—the important thing is to begin tracking absences. A weekly report citing who's out, for how long, and why, circulated to your senior managers can go a long way toward focusing management attention on the problem.

Second, make sure that prevention is given top priority. For those organizations with recurring risks of injury, there has to be an active safety program that is actively led by top management. There are certain safety practices that can have a beneficial effect on non-work injuries, too, such as driving safety programs.

Third, have an active return-to-work program. This program should include temporary modified duty programs for every employee who loses time due to an injury, whether work-related or not. While we often see resistance to modified duty from managers who mistakenly insist on "having all employees at 100 percent functionality," the facts overwhelmingly indicate that these programs reduce comp and disability costs, improve productivity, and foster faster recovery for the employees.

Finally, use your EAP to help reduce absenteeism and lost time. The reasons for absence can often be mitigated, whether the absence involves a young mother who needs help locating child care, an injured worker who is becoming depressed over not being fully active, or someone with a family or personal problem that results in missed work days. A good EAP program can go a long way in providing solutions that will help to reduce life disruptions that cause absence.

Having an overall absence management program will pay big productivity dividends. Equally importantly, it can improve morale by helping your workers to stay healthy and safe, maintain personal productivity, and preserve income.

Posted by Jim Walter, President, CEO on August 22, 2006 at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Even as the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts continue, many Military, Reservists and National Guard are returning home to family life and jobs. The job market is proving tough for many, but for those who do find jobs, this transition to normal life can be joyful and challenging at the same tine. As a manager or HR professional, there are issues to be aware of and things you can do to help the transition. Most military personnel left behind relationships, families and jobs when they were deployed. Many things have changed while they were gone and coming back into the work environment can be a culture shock for the vet.

What is the Law
Understanding the law governing their return may be helps ease the transition. Military personnel are protected by the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) that applies to all employers regardless of their size, and protect those in the reserve forces of the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, and Public Health Service Commissioned Corp. It's worth checking the regulations when an employee leaves for service so you can be prepared for their return.

Tips for Employers
If you are a supervisor or employer of an individual returning from active duty, here are some tips you can use to ease his or her transition back into the workplace.

Create a welcoming environment: Prior to the employee's return, meet with his or her colleagues to discuss any concerns they have about the impact on their responsibilities, as well as to promote the importance of being supportive as their colleague readjusts. If appropriate, consider organizing a welcoming event, such as a breakfast or cake break.

Update the employee: As soon as possible, meet with the employee to update him or her about the status of the workload, policy and personnel changes, and any other changes that occurred during the absence.

Give the employee time to readjust: Be aware that some people may need a little time to get back into the swing of their former routine. Encourage them to ask for the guidance or support they need.

Support the employee if transition proves difficult: If an employee is having significant trouble readjusting to the workplace, you can note and discuss changes and expectations in work performance, as well as listen to the employee's response and concerns. If you think there are personal issues, including anxiety or depression, related to the transition back to work, do not diagnose a suspected mental health problem--refer. Suggest that the employee seek consultation from your organization's EAP. Reminding the employee of available benefits provided by your organization at this time can be helpful as well.

Returning military may feel that no one except another vet can help so it's important to have local numbers for Veterans Outreach Programs which are located across the country. Help the employee understand that everyone needs help from time to time in dealing with the stresses of life. It is best to act on these problems as early as possible. He she may have many options to choose from: support groups, anger management classes, a service chaplain, or a mental health professional. Asking for help is not a sign of weakness.

Posted by Tina Simson, Vice President, Regional Director on August 8, 2006 at 7:22 AM | Permalink

The recent arrest of a Southwest Airline pilot on suspicion of intoxication was a grim reminder that employers haven't won the battle of substance abuse in the workplace. It has been almost twenty years since the federal government instituted the Drug Free Workplace Act requiring any organization that sells more than $100,000 of goods or services to the Feds to maintain a drug-free workplace with a complete policy and program. Because of this, virtually all large employers doing business with the government have a program. But, surprisingly, up to half of the remaining US employers don't have any type of active drug free program. The smaller the organization, the more likely there is no program.

I've had discussions with many such employers, and the reasons why they don't have programs vary. Some believe that such a program intrudes on employees' privacy. Others don't think that drugs are a problem for their organization.

Statistics tell the story
However, statistics clearly document the need for every employer: Almost one in ten employees are heavy drinkers or illicit drug users. For those employers in the construction, transportation, and hospitality industries, the numbers are even higher. And employees with drug or alcohol issues are the most costly. The Department of Labor reports that drug and alcohol abusers cost American employers over $81 billion in lost productivity. Abusers are 70 percent more likely to be absent from work than non-abusers. And they are responsible for almost half of all workplace injuries.

When it comes to workplace substance abuse, those employers that don't have a program are the most vulnerable. Employees who can't survive a drug test specifically search out those employers who don't have a policy and an active program. As a result, non drug-free employers become the employer of choice for abusers and are up to three times more likely to have abusers on the payroll than drug free employers.

Resources are available
Getting a program in place isn't that difficult. The Department of Labor's Drug Free Workplace Advisor is a great place to start. You'll find everything you need to develop a program, including an automated policy builder.

Most employers with a drug free program report improved productivity results. They tend to see reduced absenteeism, fewer accidents, better overall employee health status, and improved morale. If you’ve got a drug free workplace program in place, then you’re enjoying the benefits. If not, it may be time to reconsider implementing one.

Posted by Jim Walter, President, CEO on July 28, 2006 at 10:26 AM | Permalink