Employees Blame Drinking on Other Problems, and They Aren't Lying--But They Are Wrong

It is natural and it is normal, and it not the alcoholic trying to fool the company, his family, or the entire DOT supervisor training class when they say “other problems cause me to drink.”

Employees with substance abuse problems are earnestly working to figure out why their drinking is problematic. Frankly, this is a good reason to do employee awareness training for alcohol and other drugs of abuse--for the self-diagnosis effect this sort of training has on workers.

As a DOT supervisor training class attendee, your best approach to understand employee substance is to realize that these individuals have years—no decades!—typically, of successful, non-problematic drug and alcohol use before these substances turn on them. The reasonable suspicion training class you are attending must briefly mention these falsehoods up front with the first few slides.

When drug and alcohol abuse education fails to discuss the phenomenon mentioned above, confusion remains for the DOT Supervisor Training participants. And alcoholic and drug addicted employees will look for any viable explanation to explain away their problems with substances. This is further fueled by the shear need to do so because living without these substances that provide instant relief, first as euphoria agents, and then as symptoms relievers is not visually possible. And it is terrifying to consider it.

It is difficult to believe that some alcoholic employees blame their use of alcohol on their personal problems. We know a lot more about alcoholism in the 21^st century, and this excuse simply does not fly any longer among health and wellness professionals, no matter how ignorant they are about alcoholism.

Do these alcoholics actually believe what they are actually saying? If you are a professional counseling in the field or alcoholism or a member of some helping profession, you would find this difficult to believe, but there is good reason to accept that some alcoholics are in fact this ignorant about their disease. Enabling alcoholics, typically the work of coworkers and family members also explains these attitudes.

The truth is that some employees do believe their drug or alcohol abuse is caused by their problems. And this very real possibility is based on several factors

(Of course the truth is that these drinkers who complain about personal problems causing their alcoholism have linked relief drinking and managing stress or actual withdrawal symptoms being treated by the consumption of alcohol which makes them temporarily go away.)

The movies, false models of alcoholism, psychiatrists who don’t know any better, or friends and relatives all may explain alcohol abuse by the alcoholic as a symptom of his attempts to relieve himself of his concerns over his problems.

Mental health professionals in private practice have made millions of dollars with this psychiatric model that is completely debunked by science. So, in all the drug and alcohol courses that you might consider for use in your organization, be sure to look for this message that addictions are chronic diseases of biogenic origin.

The alcoholic that has family members and friends who buy into this model of problem drinking is not going to attempt to dissuade this misguided individuals and have them listening to a lecture about alcoholism as an acute chronic illness because they have not been educated enough to be convincing.

Go here to learn more about WorkExcel.com's non-DOT supervisor training for substance abuse or the DOT version of the reasonable suspicion training course that meets the US Department of Transportation's mandate of 60 min Alcohol, 60 Minutes Drug abuse education.

Alcohol on the Breath: What It Means

Yesterday, Zack from the welding shop came to work looking fine. It was a normal day of

working on the new high rise building going up, and driving the 10 ton equipment truck to the job site.  Zack smelled like whiskey was emanating from his breath. But he appeared perfectly fine. Is this a situation that calls for a reasonable suspicion urine test? He looks great.

Zack's manager had just participated in DOT Supervisor Training.

Some alcoholics may come to work smelling of alcohol and if you ask if they were drinking in the parking lot or otherwise before coming to work, they will jump out of their chair and shout NO! And they are not lying. So what  explains alcohol on the breath?
Middle stage alcoholics with alcohol on the breath are either drinking at work, drinking just before coming to work, or still metabolizing alcohol from a drinking episode the night before.

Alcoholics with liver dysfunction may also drink larger quantities of alcohol, but their liver works inefficiently and processes alcohol much more slowly. You therefore smell the booze emanating from their pours.

Should alcohol on the breath signal the need for a reasonable suspicion test? Yes. But, here’s a point of interest. Alcohol on the breath in the United Kingdom cannot be a stand-alone reason for requiring a blood test. Do you know why? The answer is simple. 

The UK policy is build around three realities to address alcohol use in the UK. 1) 25% of the male workforce is alcoholic compared to the USA which is about 7%.; 2) Alcoholics typically have high tolerance, and many who are drunk are functioning to the degree that they may appear sober. 3) To keep the healthcare system from breaking down.

The truth is that acute chronic alcoholism is rampant in many countries so definitions are changed to make the acuity of the problem less pronounced.

Non-DOT Training for reasonable suspicion in other job categories must still be aware of the meaning of alcohol on the breath.

Tell DOT Supervisors Why They Are Getting Trained

Most DOT supervisors come to a drug and alcohol awareness course anticipating learning about the signs and symptoms of substance abuse so they can spot employees who may be under the influence. That's what the DOT wants. No surprise there, but when training starts, hold the brakes! Start here: It’s important for DOT supervisors to get the rest of the information they need about why they are getting trained. It is not just about signs and symptoms.

There are essentially six different important reasons for DOT drug and alcohol training besides

learning the signs and symptoms, psychomotor effects, and impact on productivity that drug and alcohol abuse causes.

Spend time sharing what these are, and only a few minutes, DOT supervisors will walk away with more motivation to pay attention to what is in front of them from day to day. This will make it less likely to slip into apathy, which is a habit of thought more desirable that vigilance.

Safety. Safety is the most important reason for conducting DOT Training. Without safety and security, we have nothing, so prevention of death or injury is paramount although there are other reasons. When discussing safety, offer employees some statistics or costs related to substance abuse. DOT supervisors know what safety is all about, but reducing the risk of injury to others on the job or in the field is especially critical.

Salvage Workers. Getting nabbed by way of a positive drug screen based on reasonable suspicion gives an addicted worker the opportunity to get addiction treatment. Productivity losses are prevented and an untold cost to society is avoided. If a worker is not an addict, then mandatory drug and alcohol education is provided that will help the worker no make a decision to use substances again. Of course, some drug and alcohol policies are curtail a decision to use substances at work. (Addicts are beyond the ability to consistently predict when and where they will drink, and therefore getting caught drinking at work is a different dynamic—part of the illness. This is not an excuse, but in fact, just the opposite where a drug and alcoholic use policy forces the addict into treatment.


Improved Productivity. Employees with drug and alcohol addictions experienced tremendous productivity drop-offs, but there is much more to this story than DOT supervisors realize. The reality is that employees with drug and alcohol addictions appear to perform better…yes, I said better…than the average employee in the early stages of the disease, during what is know has the adaptive stage. You can see this phenomenon illustrated by one of handouts supplied to you in the DOT Training Course or the Non-DOT Training course. We insert this valuable handout in both.


Why is it that employees are graded by supervisors as though they are performing better and above the occupational norm in the early stages of their illness? It’s because alcohol and drug abuse in the early stages operates as a stress management mechanism and a “social lubricant”, and these two things contribute to employees being perceived—not perform—but perceived as above average in capability and desirability among their immediate supervisors grading there performance. They “hail fellow well met” individuals in many instances, confident in their abilities, energized, and leadership-like in their pursuit of occupational success.

Of course, not all alcoholics behave as described above, but enough do that the phenomenon of “above average performance” is perceived by supervisor personnel.

In the early middle states, employees under the supervision of a DOT supervisor begin to experience problems. These initially result from overdrinking and this behaviors affect on attendance. Later, the middle and later stages, many more productivity problems ensure. For example accidents and injuries are more frequent among addicts and alcoholics.

It the later stages, alcoholics may be completely dysfunctional, but many organizations retain them because of their past history of occupational success discussed above. Obviously, this is a very insidious process.

Reduced Financial Costs. Identifying and referring employees to testing and ultimately addiction treatment has the impact of reducing costs on the organization in terms of lost productivity and many associated costs.
Billions of dollars are lost each year to direct and indirect costs of alcoholism and drug addictions, and the amount of money saved is sometimes impossible to measure because these financial resources are called “dollars recovered from loss” – what is the amount of money saved from a fork lift not killing a fellow worker, who otherwise may have been killed accidentally by a drunk equipment operator? It’s not measureable, but we know the risk is there.

The dissolution of this risk is the associated cost benefit. This can be measured in comparative studies between companies, and that is indeed where the truth lies.

Health of the Worker. Improving health of workers is a no brainer. Obviously when intervention occurs and workers enter treatment, their health improves rather than continuing the deterioration caused by the abuse of substances and the lifestyles that often accompany these conditions. Simply put, if you deal cocaine, your risk of death by some incident or another is greater than the employee at home in the evening watching sitcoms.
In recovery, it has been observed by occupational alcoholism experts and employee assistance professionals, that employees bounce back and become better than well. 

An employee who has always performed on par, once in treatment, typically performs above par. This is because of the “recovery effect” on all parts of an employee’s life, especially improvements in mental health. DOT Supervisor Training may not typically discuss this issue, but any experience supervisor has witnessed it over the span of their career.

Positive Impact DOT Supervisor Families. Alcoholism is a biogenic, hereditary illness. It’s a fact. Alcoholism is not a psychological problem, willpower issue, or character flaw. Alcoholics start drinking for the same reason as most people do. They then acquire tolerance to the drug, enter the adaptive stage of the illness, and unwittingly become affected by a chronic pattern of worsening symptoms.

Some alcoholics drink alcoholically from the first drink, and for others it takes years to reach the middle stages of the illness. And, still with others, you could not make some people an alcoholic even if forced them to drink everyday with gun pointed to their head. In other words, some are immune and resistant to the illness.

Employees have family members who could have alcoholism. (Which makes it a good idea to train and education employees with drug awareness education.) Education of supervisors means eventually that that these family members are positively affected by the education offer in DOT Supervisor Training
 
When DOT supervisor training results in the empowerment of managers to confront employees, family systems are positively affected indirectly. And what about your own drinking pattern? And what about the supervisor’s own family members? Yes, information has a relay affect, and some supervisors achieving clarity on what addiction is all about, may act in more assertive and effective ways to intervene with teenagers, a spouse, or a parent affected by acute chronic alcoholism or some other addiction.

You can learn more about DOT Training of Supervisors or Non-DOT training for alcohol and drug abuse for supervisors, and any of the multiple formats for delivering this education at these links.

Does Your Reasonable Suspicion Alcohol and Drug Policy Jive With Reality?

Is trouble brewing for your company’s drug-free workplace policy and its prohibitions because they do not match reality? DOT Supervisor Training may be more difficult if your policy is not examined and made clear with respect to your work culture and what you are trying to accomplish.

In other words, do you risk of a blow-up and organizational crisis because the policy, as written, interferes with the drinking practices of high-functioning, top management and corporate executives who run the organization? It’s the elephant in the living room – or I should say in the boardroom with many employers.

Some companies have zero tolerance policies that state no alcohol may be consumed before coming to work, at at lunch during the work day, or before  the employee's return to the workplace at any time. They focus on consumption around the use of the substance, not performance related symptoms of the disease of alcoholism.

This can be a mistake when it comes to alcohol use. Illicit drugs are a different matter altogether.


Some hospitals have very strict policies. And who can blame with them with amount of risk to patients from an employee who came back to work with one too many. Sounds logical and fitting to implement, right? Maybe not.
Be careful when implementing a zero-tolerance policy so that you get buy-in from top management--you may have alcoholics working in the organization in powerful positions who will fight your efforts.

Better than a zero tolerance policy is one that focuses on performance and behavior, being "under the influence" when returning to work, and signs and symptoms that indicate an employees is not fit for duty.

Alcoholics usually do not appear under the influence, even when drunk on the job because of tolerance. And here is something to consider: Can a VP of marketing go out to lunch and have three martinis, but the mail room clerk get fired for the same thing and having a "breath on" -- no different than the VP of marketing? 

Alcohol is a legal, addictive intoxicant for 10% of drinkers. These policies can get very sticky once they are implemented. The bottom line is this: You can’t author a zero tolerance policy without an accommodation provision for addicts, or at least the organization's alcoholics. Attempting to do so will cause alcoholic employees to hide or if the power exists, have the policy indiscriminately applied, or rejected by top management altogether who feel they have a right to keep a fifth of liquor in the boardroom.

Trust the research—if you have more than say 20 top management employees, you have an alcoholic in top management. Alcoholism affects approximately 7% of the workforce – 70% of employees (conservatively) drink beverage alcohol.

Many employers are burying their heads in the sand. The “zero” tolerance alcohol and drug abuse policy is not adding up because top management will not comply and ultimately exempt themselves from it. 

If a municipality wants to write a zero tolerance, day long policy, can they force employees not to consume a legal substance at lunch off site on their own time?

What about a hospital with employees caring for very ill patients? One hospital I worked for attempted to write a zero tolerance policy and it was immediately confronted by the hospital medical staff physicians. They were not about to comply with it. And no one could force them to do so. The Vice President of the Medical Staff – with interesting drinking practices, himself, led the rebellion.

These doctors wanted to drink alcohol during the work day at lunch, or whenever. They weren't about to be restricted in their alcohol use. That meant going back to work with a positive BAL. 

 
The Federal government has had the same problem for a long time where thousands of federal workers find watering at holes during the lunch hour to avoid withdrawal symptoms, which could cause them to leave work early if they experience agitation, or drink from a bottle of booze in the desk drawer.


Alcoholism is a disease, and the symptoms of it are manifested by the alcoholic’s inability to decide when they will drink, how much they will consume on any particular drinking occasion, and what the consequences will be—indirectly or directly—for consuming alcohol. This describes “loss of control.”

Most alcohol and drug policies are faulty. They are written with the assumption that any one can control their alcohol abuse and use, or addiction at any time. That is what a zero tolerance policy is predicted on.


Policies could be written for abstinence for everyone to follow, and then when violated, users could be referred to an employee assistance program or other occupational alcoholism assessment. But this does not happen in reality or with those at the top who control the organization.

Alcoholism is also characterized by tolerance to alcohol. This means the ability to drink more over time, not feel its effects, appear sober, drink larger quantities than non-alcoholics, and appear functional, even with a high blood alcohol

This is a big problem with drug-free workplace policies that try to impose all-day abstinence on all workers.

The rate of alcoholism in Great Britain is much higher than in the USA—for males about 25% of the workforce. Ditto Australia and Russia. In the UK, it is illegal to take action against a worker for being drunk on the job where the only evidence is alcohol on the breath. Behavioral cues that are documentable performance issues must be used as the criteria for a reasonable suspicion drug test or other job action associated with intoxicant use.

This phenomenon is a big problem for drug free workplace policies that are written to be zero tolerance documents. A zero tolerance policy usually states that an employee will be fired for being drunk on the job or abusing drugs on the job.

How do we deal with the issue of tolerance as described above? And how do we deal with alcoholics in withdrawal? How do we address use of alcohol during the workday for those who will not be noticed because of high tolerance.

Can employees drink during the workday at lunch? How many drinks? Can we control employees’ behavior at lunch on their own time? What about employees in withdrawal because of alcohol addiction who must drink at lunch or appear dysfunctional in the afternoon unable to contain their physical symptoms, hide them, or show dysfunction because of withdrawal symptoms. All of this leads to risk, absenteeism, and productivity costs of one type or another.

You better answer these questions before signing off on that drug-free workplace policy that you are calling zero tolerance. Zero tolerance policies are great in theory, but without treatment and accommodation provisions within them for addicts, they cause employees to hide their drinking and drug use, and increase risk to the organization. And employees who control the organization will write themselves an exemption.

There is nothing more problematic than a drug-free workplace policy that is zero tolerance, meaning that employees are fired for abusing drugs on the job or having a positive blood alcohol level. Ultimately, it will be discriminatory.

Here’s why: Employees who are alcoholic MUST possess a positive blood alcohol level, and if they do not, they go into withdrawal and may not be able to function on the job and ward off withdrawal symptoms like shaking, being tremulous, cravings for a drink, and mood swings associated with this condition.

When I authored the drug free workplace policy at a hospital 25 years ago, the policy was written from a risk management viewpoint. The policy stated that employees may not consume alcohol or drugs during the workday or off campus at lunch during the work day. It sounded great.  Medical doctors were not required to comply with the policy. And they refused, making it a power issue.

Doctors control hospitals, not hospital administrators. Remember that. He who owns the gold makes the rules. And medical doctors report to head doctors. And if that doctor is a lunch time drinker, or keeps a bottle of booze in their office, all bets are off.

Medical doctors who are alcoholic, depending on the progression of their illness, must go to lunch and drink, drink in the hospital, and if necessary return to work intoxicated—even surgeons.

So, in theory, at a hospital where medical doctors are exempt from a drug and alcohol policy, it is permissible for the doctors to consume alcohol during the workday, and potentially be drunk on the job. They do their own thing at the peril of the community.


At last report, the drug-free workplace policy at the hospital where I work still does not apply to physicians--only to other employees in the hospital. Medical staff reserves the right to consume alcohol before work, during the work day, late afternoon, or at any time they choose. Perhaps none of the medical staff drink during the work day—but do you believe that? Get non-dot supervisor training or DOT supervisor training

Facing the Challenge of Confronting Employees Who May Be Using Drugs or Alcohol on the Job

Confronting an employee who may be under the influence is one of the most difficult and challenging jobs you will face as a manager.

Confronting employees is difficult because drug using employees or those with alcohol use problems are in denial about their problematic use of substances.Confrontations by others before you as a supervisor give your employee the opportunity to craft well-honed defense mechanisms long before you intervene. You, in effect, are not the first person the employee has encountered. You will discover such employees are defensive, and they will well bolstered ability to intellectualize and shut you down in any verbal back and forth about your observations and the need for a test. Suffice to say, you will be no verbal match if you decide to inspire them to cooperate with you.

experiences you will face being a manager. Although an alcoholic and drug policy can make it necessary, legal, and part of the job of being a supervisor, this responsibility is not a pleasant one. It is quite anxiety provoking as an essential function of your position, especially if you supervise employees in regulated DOT positions.

So, just act on your job, and pursue the penalty associated with a refusal to test.

Employees with substance abuse problems become highly adept at “reading” the emotions and “attitudes” of others with whom they engage. This is not because of alcoholism or drug addiction per se, but their need to remain in a mentally defensive posture to determine how they will explain away their drug and alcohol use problems, the goal of which is to avoid pinning such problems on substances, and instead keep the focus on external factors like other people, places, and things that caused them to have a mishap.

Over time, alcoholics and drug addicts learn to develop explanations of the drug and alcohol problems to satisfy those who confront them, and one way of doing this is to remain hyper vigilant. Assume you will never win the game of gotcha with these employees.

Always use a checklist when considering the behavior and conduct and attitude of employees you observe when attempting to determine whether there is reasonable suspicion to refer them to a drug and alcohol test. If you do not have a checklist, consider having such a document as a PDF on your smart phone or shrink the text and put it on an old playing card. Slip that into your wallet. You can also search online at any time for such a document. In the absences of these tools, focus on what you are seeing, smelling, feeling, and hearing.

Get a program for DOT drug and alcohol supervisor training or  non-dot supervisor reasonable suspicion training.