HR policy and alcoholism
“Christy” writes:
“I have a questions concerning HR Policy with companies and alcoholism. Northrop-Grumman in particular…and some specific questions concerning intervention. Are there legal limitations that prevent them from taking or pursuing action against an alcoholic? Why are they so lax?
I have reported an alcholic to the Northrop-Grumman company. They are just watching his behavior and of course he is smart enough not to drink on the job. He never misses work, etc. He drinks excessively while attending association meetings on Northrop-Grumman’s behalf after hours. This is part of his “job”.
I have read your book on the Myths of Alcoholism, and can’t say enough how much I have agreed with your conclusions. I have found some new spirited reason to stay involved. Are there other measures I can do to hasten his sobriety? Unfortunately, he has never had a DUI but yet drinks and drives every day of his life.
I am so sick and tired of hearing that he has to want to do something about it. I have been personally involved with this individual and have moved out, but have yet to get over the pain, abuse, etc that I and my childrent have gone through (8 months). He presented himself in such a manner I thought I couldn’t go wrong. He has no idea the damage he has done to the people whom have loved him the most. He will never acknowledge he has a problem, nor have I ever been able to deflate his ego or his alcoholic children. He hasn’t experienced his bottom, nor can I even begin to think what his bottom would be. His ego is unbelievable. He has had a good portion of his colon removed – cancer due to drinking) years ago. Yet, he has never been back for a single check-up.
It amazes me that a company would put him in airplanes and fly him to attend meetings without any knowledge of his health or reasoning capabilities.
What do I need to learn, do?
I thank you for your help and comments.”
I respond:
Great question, Christy. Two brief responses:
1. Yes, the legal restrictions revolve around discrimination and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alcoholism is considered a disability, so the person identified as having this disease must be coddled. And of course, we know this is exactly the wrong treatment for the person with alcoholism.
2. The fact he hasn’t had a DUI supports my theme that we need to reallocate all the funds used for the war on drugs and put them on the street, identifying and apprehending DUIs. Get yourself a copy of “Get Out of the Way! How to Identify and Avoid a Driver Under the Influence” and you’ll see just how pervasive–and overlooked–the problem really is. Far worse than anyone imagines.
Another change I’d institute is to allow insurers to tack on a huge surcharge for suspected alcoholics, especially for someone who has already been sick due to alcoholism. But then, this is my fantasy world.