A Standard for Alcoholics

If you are setting the bar for alcoholics, make sure it is very low unless you are speaking of taverns and watering holes. That is what I first thought of when I saw this article in the Anchorage Daily News. I guess a standard for alcoholics would include target goals for deceit, disappointment, as well as blood alcohol content benchmarks, but that is not the topic of the article. No, the topic is about alcoholics, both in recovery and relapsing, in the workplace.

I touched on this subject last week in the front page story Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discussing the merits of speaking honestly about substance/alcohol use, drug testing, and being in recovery in one’s career. The gist of the story is that one cannot be fired for being an alcoholic, but should instead be judged by the same standards as all employees. An employee that comes in habitually late, under performs, or comes in smelling like a brewery should be terminated… regardless if they are an alcoholic or not. No need for a separate standard. Nothing new here, but what was interesting were some of the details in the article and accompanying comments.

Click "Read more" to continue...

The basis for this article comes from a question submitted by a business owner who apparently is quite paranoid about alcoholics.

I've since learned our HR officer also has a drinking problem and don't know that she's giving me good advice. She didn't tell me about this man's history although she knew it when he was hired. When I asked why she didn't tell me she said she didn't think I needed to know… Can I write a blanket policy excluding all current and former alcoholics from positions in my company? Can I fire my deputy? Can I fire my HR officer for insubordination? ~ With alcoholics, set standards for performance

The author, Lynn Curry, is a management trainer and gives some good advice.

"Employers can hold alcoholic employees to the same standards of performance and conduct they set for other employees," says Holen. "Thus employers save themselves a great deal of trouble if they focus on job performance rather than rumors or fears about alcoholism." ~ With alcoholics, set standards for performance

I would add the fact that those in recovery that know they have a problem with alcohol and drugs are in reality probably a lesser risk than those who drink “normally”!

Then we get down to the comments section and we get to see the idiots showcase their expertise in addiction science.

NOT a disease. A disease doesn't make you pick up a glass, bottle, or whatever to take a drink. It's true that genetics can make a difference in how a person reacts to drinking alcohol, but sorry: being drunk is totally preventible. It doesn't take a lot of research to know this.

Clown.

The only reason alcoholism and drug abuse are officially named diseases is because then the doctors can bill the insurance companies for what they call treatment. Take away the monetary incentive and see how long it takes for the doctors to say that is a personal choice.

Idiot.

Not a disease. I agree that alcoholism is NOT a disease. It's time to stop allowing alcoholics a free pass for their bad choices.

Asshat.

I’ll borrow a quote from a man I much admire and say, “Too bad buffoonery doesn't cause boils on the posterior.” Not only showcasing their ignorance on the subject of alcoholism, they also fail to grasp the protection extended by the American Disabilities Act (ADA). It doesn’t allow alcoholics to drink irresponsibly on the job with immunity; it protects those of us in recovery from being discriminated against because of our disease.

That was fun.