Different areas

yellancnigg

Introduction_to_Security_----Chapter14.pdf

Home >Government homework help >Different areas

339 2013

10.1016/B978-0-12-385057-7.00014-2

Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace

OBJECTIVES

The study of this chapter will enable you to:

1. Understand the complexity of violent and/or aberrant behavior in the work environment.

2. Gain a working knowledge of how to identify potential workplace violence problems.

3. Discuss the prevention of workplace violence.

4. Know the role of violence intervention education and incident management teams.

5. Identify the problems associated with drug use in the workplace.

6. Know how to spot potential drug users.

7. Discuss the components of a comprehensive substance abuse program.

Introduction Workplace violence has become a growing concern for human resources and security manag- ers over the past decades. There have always been some problems associated with violence in the workplace, but recent decades have focused additional attention on this serious problem. Whether the violence is the result of a personnel problem such as disciplinary action, salary dispute, workforce reduction or termination or if it is of a domestic nature, such as a “love tri- angle,” employees do bring their problems to work. Far too often the pressures result in some form of violence or aberrant behavior against fellow employees, employers, or the work facil- ity. To a degree, any work environment can be like a small city and in that city you will have aberrant behavior issues arise that require a response from a security team, not unlike a city’s police force.

In addition to traditional concepts of workplace violence, the late 1990s saw serious prob- lems with violence in our schools. Columbine High School and Little Rock will be remem- bered for many years, as will recent shootings at an Amish school in 2006 and Virginia Tech University in 2007—the worst mass shooting in school history. No one had thought about the possibility of violence becoming murderous on our school properties. The murders at these and other schools brought the public’s focus onto schools. Schools and government bodies responded with safe school studies and grants. Many schools have dramatically improved their access systems, locking doors, assigning identification systems, and in some cases installing metal detectors.

Fischer, R., Halibozek, E., & Walters, D. (2012). Introduction to security. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2020-08-10 13:25:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385057-7.00014-2

340 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

Though the response to school violence was swift, the reality is that schools remain the saf- est environment for children. According to the findings of The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative (May 2002), the Department of Education (DoE) reported that there are almost 60 million children in American schools. The Safe School Initiative study was able to identify only 37 incidents of targeted school-based attacks committed by 41 individuals over a 25-year period. The increased security can do nothing but improve safety, but caution must be taken not to create an environment that children and parents view as draconian.

This chapter also discusses drug use in the workplace. Unfortunately, drug abuse and violence in the workplace are often found together, which can produce a volatile mixture of emotions. For smaller companies, workplace substance abuse costs Americans over $100 billion annually and causes companies to incur a 300 percent increase in medical benefits.1 Substance abuse is also an ongoing problem in the school setting. In 2004 the U.S. public school systems reported 32,641 incidents of distribution of illegal drugs and 131,267 incidents of possession or use of alcohol or illegal drugs. The forces that cause frustration that leads to violence also contribute to substance abuse. In turn, substance abuse often leads to a lack of control and violent behavior.

Webster defines violence as an “[unwanted] exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse” or a “vehement feeling or expression.” Encompassed within this broad definition are subtle forms of harassment, threats, intimidation, and sabotage, as well as overt acts of violence and temper tantrums. According to Joseph Kinney, workplace violence includes four broad categories:

l Threat l Harassment l Attack l Sabotage

Before defining each category of violence, it is very important to remember from the onset of this chapter that an over-response can unduly escalate a situation. It is equally critical to understand that a range of emotions can be expected when individuals are affected by a work- force reduction, for example. Venting, crying and expressions of frustration, surprise, anger, and sadness, among other human characteristics, are well within the boundaries of normal responses and can be expected by people who are truly nonviolent. In short, an emotional response doesn’t lead to an extreme. Finally, organizations are fast becoming a global ecosys- tem of different nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds, all of which should be taken into consideration when attempting to diagnosis a workplace civility issue.

Threat

Threat involves an expression of an intention to inflict injury. A threat can be an intimidating stare, posture, or verbal exchange. An intimidating stare or posture is less obvious and, there- fore, can be more subtle; a verbal exchange is more direct and obvious. The key is to determine whether the threat was made in jest or with malice aforethought. In all cases, threats should not be tolerated in the workplace.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 341

Harassment

Harassment in general involves a behavior designed to trouble or worry someone. For exam- ple, sexual harassment often causes people to fear the loss of their jobs if they resist or report it. Harassing behavior can be something like putting grease on a coworker’s chair or phone, feces in or on their desk, or graffiti on bathroom walls or making phone calls with immediate hang-ups.

Attack

Attacks involve the use of unwanted force against someone in order to cause harm. To attack is to make contact in an unwanted manner such as spitting, choking, punching, slapping, and grabbing. The key word is unwanted. Like threats, attacks, even in harmless fun, should not be tolerated in the workplace.

Sabotage

Sabotage involves the destruction of an employer’s property, tools, equipment, and products to hinder the manufacturing process, which can ultimately affect a company’s profits. For example, take the case of a factory worker who attacked a conveyor and shut down production for a half day. Although this action occurred due to drug ingestion, the initial factor leading to this incident was employee game playing. Another example is the General Motors employee nicknamed “Edward Scissorhands” by other factory workers, who would often cut power to the plant to halt production. The worker was motivated by frustration and anger over the GM workforce reductions that caused this employee and others to work longer hours and week- ends to meet production schedules.

Violence and the Workplace The Phenomenon of Workplace Violence

Workplace violence is not new, and in fact reached a high point during the late 1890s and early 1900s with the growing union movements; however, the focus of the violence has changed greatly over the years. Today’s workplace is too often the focus of random acts of violence that on the surface appear to have no logical cause. A study of the phenomenon and underlying factors makes it possible for security managers to prevent violence or proactively intervene in a potential problem area before violence occurs.

Each day a newspaper, magazine, radio, or television reports another act or occurrence of workplace violence in America. According to the March 2011 National Crime Victimization Survey which comes from the US Department of Justice, the rate of violent crime against employed persons has declined since 1993. In fact, according to the same survey, from 2002 to 2009 the rate of nonfatal workplace violence has declined by 35%, following a 52% decline in the rate from 1993 to 2002.

Employees do bring their problems to work!

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

342 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

It is perhaps coincidental that the decline parallels major companies’ efforts to combat the increase in workplace violence that occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s.2 In any case, the victims are new and the lives shattered are real. Who are the victims? Victims range from those directly involved to those indirectly involved, such as first responders, family, friends, and col- leagues. Between 2005 and 2009, law enforcement officers, security guards and bartenders had the highest rates of nonfatal workplace violence. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 572,000 nonfatal violent crimes occurred at work or on duty in 2009. This level of nonfatal crime is about a quarter of the 2.1 million nonfatal violent crimes that occurred at the workplace in 1993. Along with the decline in nonfatal workplace violence, the number of homicides decreased by 51% from a high of 1,068 homicides in 1993 to 521 in 2009. A majority of workplace violence (both fatal and nonfatal) occurs in private companies. Of the victims, middle aged men are more likely than women to experience violence. The overall cost of work- place violence is hard to determine. However, the Department of Justice estimates that it can cost employers well over 6 billion in lost wages, medical and support costs.3 Naturally, the loss of life and overall suffering cannot be measured in dollars but make no mistake, there is a cost to the health and well-being of an organization.

As it relates to the most serious violent incidents in the workplace, specifically homicides, Tables 14-1, 14-2 and 14-3 below show incidents by occupation of the victims, offender and incident type between 2005 to 2009.

Regardless of the decline in workplace violence since 1993, there are three primary reasons it exists in the first place. First, there is society’s general acceptance of using violent means to deal with emotions and negative feelings. In other words, those who use violence as a form of personal communication believe their behavior is an acceptable way to deal with conflict, emotions and problems. Today’s children, who are now becoming the employees of America, are generally viewed as an aggressive and potentially violent bunch. A study of teachers in 1949 revealed their primary concerns to be student tardiness, smoking, and ditching class on occa- sion. The same study conducted in 1995 reveals a much different and more alarming picture. The primary concerns of today’s teachers include the availability of weapons and their use on campus, violence in general, drugs and alcohol use and abuse among students, and finally, the breakdown of the family structure. This still holds true today.

A second factor is the general availability of guns and the mass media’s glamorous and accepted portrayal of their use to remedy a wrong done or to seek revenge. According to Joseph Kinney, “The availability of guns, the experience that people have in using such weap- ons, and the perception that such use is legitimate have created circumstances encouraging weapons use.”4 Eighty percent of all workplace homicides were committed with firearms.5

Between 1993 to 2009, workplace homicides decreased by 51% from 1,068 in 1993 to 526 in 2009. The three most risky environments to work based on chance of death through homicide are retail operations, service industries, government and transportation operations. The most dangerous occupation was that of a taxicab driver. In 1998 a taxicab driver risked dying on the job at a rate of 36 times that of the national average.6 This still holds true today.

Finally, economic factors also contribute to workplace violence. According to Michael Mantell, “the rising tide of workplace violence incidents points to two carefully linked factors:

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 343

people and money.”7 Today, perhaps more than ever, workers feel vulnerable, especially in cor- porate America. Even a “secure” government job is becoming a less secure place to work as pension funding becomes more problematic and the privatization and reengineering move- ments take hold. Teams of employees often find themselves processing each other out of a job as unnecessary steps are eliminated. Workers are more apt to turn to violence to deal with emotions and negative feelings toward co-workers and the employing organization.

Table 14-1 Workplace Homicides, by Occupation of Victim, 2005–2009

Occupation Percent of Workplace Homicide Victims Age 16 or Older

Total 100.0%

Management, business and financial 9.6% Management 9.2 Business and financial operations 0.4

Professional and related 5.1% Computer and mathematical --*

Architecture and engineering 0.3* Life, physical, and social science 0.1* Community and social services 1.2 Legal 0.6 Education, training, and library 0.6 Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media 1.1 Healthcare practitioners and technical 1.2

Service 30.4% Healthcare support 0.7 Protective service 17.2 Food preparation and service-related 7.2 Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance 2.4 Personal care and service 2.9

Sales and office 32.8% Sales and related 27.9 Office and administrative support 4.9

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance 6.5% Farming, fishing, and forestry 0.8 Construction and extraction 3.0 Installation, maintenance and repair 2.7

Production, transportation, and material moving 15.7% Production 2.4 Transportation and material moving 13.2

Note: The National Crime Victimization Survey and Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries use different categories of occupations. See Methodology. Includes 2009 data which are preliminary. Excludes homicides where the victim occupation was unknown. Details do not sum to total due to rounding. *Based on 10 or fewer cases. -- Rounds to less than 0.05%. Source: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

344 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

It is unfair, however, to suggest that all employees will act out violently against coworkers or the organization. To the contrary, some aggressors just commit suicide. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 447 employees committed suicide on the job between 2007–2008.8 Even when grievance or employee appeal processes are used to redress the sources of prob- lems, acts of violence continue to rise. For example, a former postal employee in the Royal Oaks, Michigan, post office killed four postal workers and himself although an arbitration pro- cess, albeit lengthy, had been invoked to help him get his job back. No matter the type of work- place violence, it is destructive and often senseless. It not only attacks the very fabric of the

Table 14-2 Workplace Homicides, by Offender Type, 2005–2009

Offender Type Percent of Workplace Homicide Victims Age 16 or Older

Total 100.0%

Robbers and other assailants 70.3% Robbers 38.3 Other assailants 32.0

Work associates 21.4% Co-worker, former co-worker 11.4 Customer, client 10.0

Relatives 4.0% Spouse 2.9 Other relatives 0.8

Other personal acquaintances 4.3% Current or former boyfriend or girlfriend 2.0 Other acquaintances 2.3

Note: Excludes strangers or assailants who were unknown. Includes 2009 preliminary data. Details do not sum to total due to rounding. See Methodology. Source: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table 14-3 Workplace Homicides, by Incident Type, 2005–2009

Incident Type Percent of Workplace Homicide Victims Age 16 or Older

Total 100.0% Hitting, kicking, beating 6.1 Shooting 80.0 Stabbing 8.1 Unknown 5.8

Note: Includes 2009 preliminary data. Unknown category includes homicides not elsewhere classified and homicides with unspecified types. See Methodology. Source: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 345

organization, it also serves to polarize and frighten the workforce, which can negatively affect productivity and employee satisfaction.

According to Dr. Charles Labig, there are six common sources of violence on the job:

l Strangers, who are typically involved in the commission of a crime or who have a grudge against the business or an employee

l Current or past customers l Current or former co-workers who commit murder l Current or former co-workers who threaten an assault l Spouses or lovers involved in domestic disputes l Those infatuated with or who stalk employees9

The Work Environment and Violence

One key finding in a Northwestern National Life Insurance survey on workplace violence was a strong correlation between job stress and workplace violence. Many factors must be consid- ered in this formula—for example, employee/employer relations, leadership styles, commu- nication patterns, and job security. These factors need to be explored and understood in the context of potential workplace violence. Demeanor and tone can contribute to an employee’s feelings and job satisfaction. The traditional McGregor Theory X leader often contributes to work-related problems such as stress attacks, headaches, insomnia, ulcers, nightmares, and anxiety bouts.

In the 1990s, William Lunding stated: “To survive and thrive . . . [leaders] need to shift their thinking from ‘kick butt’ to compassion, from suspicion to trust, from a ‘no-brainer’ to a learn- ing environment.”10 Generally speaking, employees like to work in an environment where lead- ers view their employees as an integral and important part of the organization in furthering its mission. Working for a management structure that trusts and respects its employees’ opinions will naturally make the work environment less stressful. Still, workers cannot be left to their own imaginations and direction. Mantell’s analogy says it well:

Employees in [an organization] are much like blades of grass that together make up a vast green lawn. Given the proper amount of attention, “care and feeding” if you will, nur- turing, and exposure to warmth, this “lawn” will flourish. Left to grow unchecked, with- out careful supervision, control and planning for the future, many parts of the lawn will wither and die or grow completely out of control.11

As a society, we have become increasingly attached to our work. Often, the nature of our work defines who we are, what we are, and what social status we enjoy in the community. In most social conversations, soon after “How are you?” comes “What do you do for a living?” More than ever, people are judged not so much by who they are but by what they do for a liv- ing. People who are unemployed often avoid social functions to avoid answering the inevitable questions. Simply stated, for many employees, success at work means success at life.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

346 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

An organization provides many human needs, from pay to provide for food and shel- ter to benefits to provide for protection of not only the employee but his or her family as well. In essence, the organization provides security, stability, and structure, which, in turn, provide friendships and sometimes love in the workplace, self-respect and a sense of competency, and ultimately belonging. After a while, and particularly if one is a long-term employee, one begins to count on the organization to provide a standard of living. Consider what happens when an employer takes a person’s job away for cause or due to downsizing. This type of rejection, partic- ularly for an emotionally unstable person, dependent in some cases on drugs or alcohol and who identified his or her self-worth and self-esteem with the job, can become potentially explosive.

“We watch in amazement as people make requests of their employer they probably wouldn’t make of their own mother, including … education, recreation, [specialized] medical care, psychological care, and plenty of tangible and intangible ‘warm fuzzies’ that help people pull themselves out of bed and head out to work.”12 We need to recognize that the loss of stat- ure (whether real or perceived), income, or opportunity, such as with a job change, job loss, or demotion, can be devastating to a person’s sense of well-being. A job loss can severely attack an individual’s self-esteem and sense of identity, causing the person to lash out either overtly or covertly at the organization or individual who caused the pain.

Profiling Violent Behavior

The well-established profile for violent behavior in the workplace, and perhaps the prevailing view, according to Tom Harpley of National Trauma Services, is as follows: “The workplace murderer is likely to be a Caucasian male [between 25 and 40 years of age], using an exotic weapon, such as an Uzi, an AK-47…legally acquired.”13 Although this may be the prevailing view, there is little supporting evidence that it is an accurate profile or that certain kinds of per- sons can be identified with violent behavior. Typecasting is unrealistic in the work world and can lead to a grossly false diagnosis of potentially violent behavior. Violence is not the result of a particular type of person but rather a mixture of experiences and emotions reinforced over time, sparked by some event that causes violence. Still, there are certain common behav- ioral characteristics or predictors that can be used to recognize a person’s potential for violent behavior:

l Disgruntled over perceived injustices at work. This type of employee will be angry, upset, and annoyed about such things as pay, benefits, working conditions, discipline, and the way executive management especially operates. It is not uncommon for such an employee to feel paranoid, persecuted, or conspired against. This type of employee is readily recognizable as one who takes up causes almost to the extreme either on his or her own behalf or for a co-worker who is reluctant to come forward.

l A loner who is socially isolated. This type of employee does not appear to have any outside interests; he or she identifies their self-worth and self-esteem with the job and avoids socializing during lunchtime, breaks, and other social functions. When someone attempts to seek them out to invite them, they seem more than just shy.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 347

l Poor self-esteem. This type of employee lacks the self-esteem necessary to move ahead and will often become easily frustrated and has difficulty accepting constructive criticism. It is not uncommon for this type of employee to be extremely pessimistic, carrying around a personal collection of stories of hurt, rejection, and powerlessness.

l Angry. This type of employee is easily angered and often blows his or her cool for even the smallest of reasons. It is not uncommon for this type of employee to escalate into a full- blown rage from a seemingly normal conversation. It would not be uncommon for this type of employee to have a criminal history.

l Threatening. This type of employee takes pleasure in directly threatening, harassing (including sexually), or intimidating co-workers that he or she does not like and the organization as a whole. Statements such as “you will be sorry for what you said” or “revenge is sweet” are not uncommon among the many statements this type of employee will make.

l Interested in media coverage of violence. This type of employee has an excessive interest in the mass media’s coverage of violence and can often be heard quoting articles about workplace violence episodes. It is not uncommon for this type of employee to suggest that if the same act occurred where he or she worked, management would finally take notice. An employee of this nature might even attempt to copycat other acts of workplace violence.

l Has asked for help before. This type of employee has indirectly or directly asked for help from the organization’s employee assistance program, a co-worker, or a supervisor.

l Collects weapons. This type of employee collects weapons, particularly guns, and may often brag about his or her collection. It would not be uncommon for this employee to have subscriptions to such magazines as Soldier of Fortune or Survivalist. This employee might also have a fascination with the military.

l Unstable family life. This type of employee has either grown up in a dysfunctional family, had a chaotic childhood, or has no support system on which to fall back. This type of employee may disrespect animals and may have abused them as a child.

l Chronic labor/management disputes. This type of employee has a long history of ongoing labor/management disputes or has numerous unresolved physical or emotional injury claims. It is not uncommon for this employee to take management’s instructions as suspect. This employee will routinely violate organizational policies and procedures.

l Stress. This type of employee shows constant signs of stress or is a chronic complainer who always seems to feel overburdened by the pace, the workload, or the physical or psychological demands of the job. It is not uncommon for this employee’s true personality to come out under stress; this may be the exact person one sees each day: aggressive, uncompromising, and belligerent.

l Migratory job history. This type of employee has bounced from job to job in a relatively short time. In fact, a history of migratory jobs should be caught at the pre-employment interview and rigorously questioned.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

348 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

l Drug and alcohol abuse. This type of employee will show signs of alcohol and other drug abuse, which is traditionally characterized by bloodshot, drooping, or watery eyes; impairment in speech or motor skills; and an unusually disheveled appearance.

l Vindictive. This type of employee will be vindictive in his or her actions or words. This type of employee will not leave well enough alone and will often attack the character of a person or organization even though the problem has been resolved. This employee is a typical “organizational sniper” who takes pleasure in watching others dodge the virtual bullets. It is not uncommon for this employee to feel little or no remorse after hurting someone and in some cases actually taking a perverted pleasure in it.

Violence is not the result of a particular type of person but rather a mixture of experiences and emotions reinforced over time.

These above characteristics are not all-inclusive and will require updating as new clues are developed. Unfortunately, the behavioral patterns of a typical perpetrator of workplace vio- lence are frequently apparent, though often noted only in retrospect. These behavioral char- acteristics alone or in combination with one another do not necessarily guarantee that an individual will become violent. In other words, they should not be considered a guarantee of violent behavior. However, they can, and often do, act as an early warning system, so that preventive intervention techniques can be used before it is too late. All supervisors, human resource professionals, and staffing specialists should be trained to identify and properly han- dle these behavioral characteristics when they manifest themselves either independently or jointly in an employee.

Basic Levels of Violence

Once a person decides to act out, violence can take many forms. Experts generally agree that it manifests itself in three levels of intensity:

l Level 1. Subject actively or passively refuses to cooperate with superiors; spreads rumors and gossip to harm others; frequently argues with co-workers; is belligerent toward customers and clients; constantly swears; and, finally, makes unwanted sexual comments.

l Level 2. Subject argues increasingly with customers, co-workers, and supervisors; refuses to comply with the organization’s policies and procedures; sabotages equipment and steals the organization’s property for revenge; verbalizes the wish to hurt co-workers and supervisors; sends sexual or violent messages to co-workers and supervisors; and, finally, regards self as victimized by management—“me against them.”

l Level 3. Subject frequently displays intense anger; recurrent suicidal threats; recurrent physical fights; destroys or sabotages company property; uses weapons to harm others; and, finally, commits murder, rape, or arson.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 349

Preventing Workplace Violence

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The need for prevention is so apparent that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued an alert in 1993 requesting organizations to pre- vent workplace violence, particularly workplace homicide. The purpose of the alert was to (1) identify high-risk occupations and workplaces, (2) inform organizations and employees about the risk, and (3) encourage organizations to gather statistics and to take active intervention education measures.

“The single biggest deterrent to violence in the workplace is careful hiring [and screening].” —Joseph Kinney

“Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It is the result of an escalating process, rather than of one sudden event.”14

—Charles Labig

Both the CDC, through its division the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and OSHA are deeply involved in research and training initiatives in the area of vio- lence in the workplace. Both groups have produced major works reporting statistics as well as suggesting methods to reduce the potential for work-related violence. (See www.osha.gov/SLTC/ workplaceviolence/index.html or www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html for additional resources.)

Investing in the prevention of violence in the workplace is as vital to a business as investing in research and development. According to Joseph Kinney, the key step in preventing work- place violence is to look for a history of violence in a person’s background.15 Mantell supports Kinney’s suggestion: “The single biggest deterrent to violence in the workplace is careful hiring [and screening].”16 In short, one of the best ways to prevent workplace violence is not to hire a potentially violent person into the fabric of the organization.

Even with proper hiring processes, employees can still become disillusioned and violence may still occur. An organization that fails to prepare for the likelihood of violence can be faced with regu- latory sanctions, costly litigation, and the loss of faith among once trusting employees, partners and customers. Under no circumstances should an organization believe that it is immune from work- place violence. An organization that is proactive on the issue of workplace violence should consider the development of a Violence Intervention and Contingency Team (VIACT). Such recognized employers as the United States Postal Service, General Dynamics, International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation, Honeywell, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M), Kraft General Foods, General Motors, and the Elgar Corporation have formed VIACTs to address violent acts because of past violent incidents. At the least, the teams will communicate to all employees that the organi- zation is genuinely concerned about their welfare and is doing everything possible to prevent and defuse potentially violent situations before they might occur.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html

350 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

The Violence Intervention and Contingency Team (VIACT)

Since all organizations are different, forming a VIACT to prevent and respond to violent situ- ations will require some degree of tailoring to fit the organizational structure. Ideally, mem- bers of the team should include, but not be limited to, the following: management, human resources, health and safety, medical, legal, public relations, and security. The team’s primary goal is to ensure that all available resources are used at the earliest opportunity to prevent and respond to potentially violent situations. Independent of an actual incident, the VIACT must meet regularly and should become subject-matter experts.

Finally, one of VIACT’s primary goals is to ensure that all available resources are used at the earliest opportunity to prevent and respond to potentially violent situations.

Pre-Violence Prevention Mission The team should lead the way in developing policies and procedures that make it absolutely clear to all employees that the organization will not tolerate threats, acts of sabotage, intimida- tion, harassment, stalking, or violent acts in the workplace. A key component is to communi- cate to employees that they will be held accountable for their actions and that the organization will cooperate fully with local law enforcement and public prosecutors in dealing with any per- son involved in workplace violence.

The team should also work to develop a cooperative liaison and open communication with local law enforcement, fire support, and emergency medical services. The team should exam- ine the capabilities and responsiveness of these agencies and detect shortfalls, and if any exist, arrange for an alternative or coordinated response.

Finally, the team should identify intervention education processes to prevent workplace violence, formulate education and awareness programs, and ensure that employees have access to knowledgeable resources that can help prevent or defuse violence in the workplace.

Post-Violence Mission Once an incident has occurred, the team should convene to review incidents involving the potential for violence or to recommend corrective actions or intervention strategies. If a violent situation arises or the potential for violence is imminent, the team should convene to review the possibility and seriousness of a violent episode; examine administrative, disciplinary and medical options; and examine legal alternatives such as seeking arrest, committing to a medi- cal or mental facility, issuing no trespass warnings, or obtaining an injunction against harass- ment (known as a restraining order). In all situations involving workplace violence, the team should recommend a timely and decisive response to any violent behavior or act of sabotage.

The VIACT should know when to meet. Prematurely convening a team may frustrate team members and discredit the entire mission. The team should convene when the nature of the threat, harassment, attack, or act of sabotage is unique and falls outside the scope of the orga- nization’s normal progressive disciplinary policy. In sum, the VIACT should be the organiza- tion’s single point of contact with local law enforcement, regulatory bodies, and the media. They should be the information-gathering center for the organization, in turn separating and disseminating factual information.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 351

Strategies for Dealing with Potential Violence An important part of the VIACT mission is to protect employees from harm and limit liability and regulatory sanctions against an organization. Toward that end, the team should recommend a swift protection strategy after a violent incident occurs. An organization must consider serious all acts of violence, veiled threats and sabotage until proven otherwise and appropriate action must be taken to protect employees and property from further harm or damage. In other words, an organization should take whatever action is reasonable and necessary to contain the violent act and minimize the risk of harm to employees and, secondarily, to property. The violent per- petrator should be managed or removed from the organization’s premises as quickly as possible.

Particular attention should be given to employee(s) who is (are) directly threatened. Appropriate measures will vary according to the circumstances of each threat and may include, but are not limited to, the following:

l Involving local law enforcement l Protecting the threatened individual’s work environment (e.g., increasing security) l Staggering or changing the individual’s work shift l Allowing the individual to park inside the facility or plant l Transferring the individual to another work area, building, or site l Having the individual escorted to and from his or her vehicle or home l Relocating the individual to another facility out of the region, temporarily or permanently l Advising the individual to alter his or her daily routine and remove its predictability

The team should consider the following options concerning a violent perpetrator:

l Changing the shift or transferring to another location l Suspension with pay pending further investigation l Immediate referral to a medical department or the organization’s employee assistance

program (EAP) l Retirement l Voluntary mutual separation l Progressive discipline l Involuntary termination of employment (for cause)

Perpetrators’ Rights

Alleged perpetrators have rights. The case law in this area suggests that an employer can be found liable for defamation of character if it mistakenly reports the perpetrator as violent when the evidence suggests otherwise. To avoid a claim of defamation of character, an organization should use terms such as aberrant behavior over violent behavior and begin its investigation by discussing the allegations with the individuals who have personal knowledge of the violent incident; it should not rely on hearsay information. Moreover, if an employer discharges an employee without validating the fact that the employee is violent, the employer can be found liable for wrongful discharge. After a threat or actual act of violence occurs, employers should suspend with pay the alleged perpetrator pending further investigation.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

352 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

Intervention Strategy

Mantell offers what he calls the workplace violence spectrum (see Figure 14-1), a proactive strategy for recognizing, dealing with, and defusing a potentially violent act before it is too late. The key to using the spectrum is for an organization to look at all employees to determine as accurately as possible where on the spectrum each employee falls:

l The normal employee. The normal employee is a person who gets along with others and resolves conflict in a constructive manner and, therefore, does not pose a threat of workplace violence.

l The covert employee. The covert or closet employee engages in silent, hidden, or behind- the-scene activities designed to be disruptive to the workplace. This employee might sabotage equipment, leave notes, vandalize property, or leave disturbing voicemail messages or threatening faxes.

l The fence-sitter employee. The fence-sitter is on the border between covert tactics and actual violence. This employee’s actions will be more direct and confrontational. In some cases, he or she might not take steps to hide his or her identity.

l The overt employee. The overt employee will act out directly and openly against the organization or person perceived to have caused him or her harm. This employee can be highly volatile and ready to strike at any moment.

l The dangerous employee. The dangerous employee is the potentially homicidal employee, bent on causing destruction and threatening the lives of not only him- or herself but of others as well. In short, this employee is a ticking bomb waiting to explode.

Proactive intervention begins with the covert employee. The strategy is to identify the covert employee before he or she reaches the fence-sitter stage of the continuum and to direct the employee back to the normal range of behavior. An organization should apply as many resources as necessary to identify the covert employee. Anonymous hotlines, investigative techniques such as covert surveillance cameras, and education and awareness programs for employees are all methods to identify the covert employee. Once the covert employee is positively identified, the organization can prescribe many forms of intervention to push the employee back to a normal

The normal employee

The covert employee

The overt employee

The fence-sitter employee

The dangerous employee

Intervention box (Proactive intervention begins here)

FIGURE 14-1 Workplace violence spectrum. (From Michael Mantell, Ticking Bombs: Defusing Violence in the Workplace [Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Publishing, 1994]. Intervention box and strategy developed by the researcher.)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 353

employee state. Forms of intervention include psychological counseling, employee assistance programs, grievance hearings, time away from work to relieve stress and pressure (e.g., vacation, personal or medical leave), intervention sessions, or progressive discipline designed to coach.17

Intervention Education Intervention education is defined as reaching out to employees before it is too late to do so no matter where they fall on the continuum. More specifically, intervention education means imme- diately recognizing and correcting unsatisfactory behavior and performance patterns before they get out of hand. Once they’re out of control, the result can be termination of employment or worse—violence. Intervention education is the key to eliminating the sparks of future workplace violence. Violent behavior clues are usually evident, as noted earlier. Prevention begins with care- ful observations and proactive communication so the aberrant behavior problem does not fester.

Intervention begins with establishing open communications with all employees and pro- viding an anonymous reporting channel for complaints about aberrant behavior. If employees believe they can speak openly and honestly with the organization, it can serve as a pressure release valve, blowing off steam when the pressure and stress get to be too much to handle. In other words, allowing employees to vent their feelings is an effective way to reduce job pres- sure and stress that can lead to violence.

To reduce stress in the organization, employees should believe they have five inalienable rights:

1. Freedom of speech 2. Credit for work performed 3. Strong support 4. Reliable guidance 5. Solid leadership

Humor that is not harassing or combative should also be encouraged in the workplace. Research shows that the positive effects of laughter can be enormous. Employees should also be encouraged to relax.

The Intervention Any form of intervention must be tempered by the realization that violence could occur. You should quickly learn to expect the unexpected when it comes to an intervention session. Don’t be fooled into thinking that violence always involves physical contact. Verbal threats, abusive language, and acts of intimidation can sometimes be more threatening than physical contact.

Always consider personal safety before an intervention session. If you believe that the inter- vention session could be confrontational, contact the organization’s security department so the necessary security countermeasures can be put in place, or consult the guidance manual for addressing violent acts in the workplace.

During the intervention session, always face the employee and sit as close to the exit as possible; never allow the employee to sit between you and the door in case an escape is neces- sary. Remove all potentially dangerous items from the intervention area. If appropriate, have a second person in the hearing room during the intervention session. Not only can this provide

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

354 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

a calming effect, but it can also act as a force presence. Women provide a calming effect when it comes to male-to-male hearings. Finally, have available tissues and business cards with the organization’s EAP phone number. Intervention must be tempered by the realization that vio- lence could occur.

Handling an intervention session can be difficult, given the fact that people in general do not like or handle confrontation well. It is important to recognize that the intervention ses- sion can be laden with emotion on both sides. The session should be made as much a positive experience for the employee as possible. It is also helpful to offer a beverage as an icebreaker.

There is no one best way to conduct an intervention session. However, how you begin the session will often determine its outcome. As a result, begin with something like the follow- ing statement: “Listen, the organization and I do not want to fire you. However, you are here because of your unsatisfactory behavior. Do you understand how you arrived at this stage?” It is appropriate to wait for a response at this point, and then say something like “The organi- zation’s goal is to help you become the best employee you can be. However, the organization needs your help to accomplish this goal. Do you understand what we are saying?”

Intervention can be a positive experience if you quickly remove the immediate threat of being fired from the employee’s mind. Once the threat has been removed, move to get the employee to accept responsibility for improving his or her unsatisfactory behavior. If the employee responds, “I understand what you mean and I am sorry,” you have arrived at the acceptance stage. Now move quickly to solidify ideas for improvement. Employees who believe their suggestions are included in the improvement solution are more apt to take ownership of their behavior and voluntarily seek to improve it. It is also important to recognize when an expert is needed. Some employees bring deep-seated emotional problems to the intervention session. If this is the case, refer the employee to the organization’s EAP.

If the intervention session involves progressive discipline that requires some form of docu- mentation, such as a written reminder, the session should be rehearsed prior to the employ- ee’s arrival, to ensure a smooth delivery of the letter’s contents. Always remain genuine and authentic during the session. Do not speed through the written reminder. Take the time neces- sary to explore each paragraph with the employee. Wait for questions, and answer them as you can. The session should not be dictatorial, in which the organization imposes sentence on the employee. The session should be designed to get the employee to accept and voluntarily cor- rect his or her behavior. Be firm but polite and respectful. Do not be surprised if the employee gets emotional.

As a rule, do not give the written reminder to the employee when he or she walks into the intervention session. In the employee’s mind, this could be an ominous start to an otherwise productive session. Instead, talk each paragraph out, as an actor would a script. In this way, the employee will be focusing not on the letter but the session’s intent.

If the employee is represented under a collective bargaining agreement and requests union representation, wait until representation arrives before proceeding. At the conclusion of the intervention session, give the employee a copy of the written reminder as a capstone of the conversation. For written material, it is wise to have the employee co-sign the letter. If a union representative is present, have the representative sign the letter as well.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 355

Research and the authors suggest that an effective system of disciplinary due process will reduce workplace violence. Many instances of workplace violence have been the result of some perceived injustice at work. Due process gives the employee a chance to work out his or her differences. Using the intervention strategy and recommendations, the organization can effectively intervene in a positive and productive manner. Finally, leaders within an organiza- tion must learn to understand human behavior. It is not what you say that makes employees respond, but rather how you say it.

Finally, do not expect all employees to behave alike. Learn to recognize their strengths and weaknesses and respond accordingly. To be a successful leader, you must adopt a separate and sometimes distinct approach for each employee.18

Drugs in the Workplace While many U.S. citizens view drugs as a recent problem, the use of drugs in the workplace has been a problem for many years. In fact, historically, private enterprise has pioneered most of the programs in drug detection, prevention, and rehabilitation. The federal government has adopted a policy that makes some drugs illegal and drug usage unacceptable. Support for the federal policy has been forthcoming from all segments of society, including federal govern- ment, state government, and business.

American business leaders share a consensus that illegal drugs have become pervasive. The exact costs associated with the drug problem in the workplace are not known, but the esti- mates are staggering. Using data from 2007, the National Drug Intelligence Center19 issued a report that estimated illicit drug use has created a $193-billion economic impact on American Society. Approximately $120.3 billion of the total burden relates to losses in productivity.20 When examining alcohol, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism21 estimates the cost of alcohol abuse at approximately $184.6 billion yearly.

Of the 19.3 million current illicit drug users (18 or older), approximately 66.6 percent are employed full or part time. When rate of use is examined by employment status, approximately 8.0 percent of full-time and 11.5 percent of part-time workers used an illicit drug last month. In addition, 42.7 million employed workers reported alcohol binge drinking (drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on one day in the last month) and 12.4 million full- and part-time employees were categorized as heavy drinkers (drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on five or more days in the last month).22

Drug use and abuse is broadly distributed across occupations and industries; however, prevalence varies. Table 14-4 shows the prevalence of illicit drug use and levels of heavy drink- ing among 12 industries.23 Combined data from 2002–2004 show that illegal drug use was greatest among workers in the occupations of accommodations and food services; construc- tion; and arts, entertainment, and recreation. Heavy alcohol use was also relatively high among these occupations, as well as among mining and wholesale trade.

While alcohol is the most commonly abused drug, 7.3 million (6.4%) full-time employees reported using marijuana.24 The use of psychotherapeutics (e.g., prescription painkillers, stimu- lants, tranquilizers, or sedatives) also has become a concern in the workplace. A study published

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

356 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

in the Journal of Applied Psychology reported marijuana and psychotherapeutics have been found to be the most commonly used drugs prior to and during work hours.25 Additionally, of the 2.2 million drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics for the general United States work- force (January through June, 2010), the greatest number of positive results were found for mari- juana, followed by amphetamines, prescription painkillers, and cocaine, respectively.26

Impact of Drug Use

Substance abusers, as compared to nonabusers, are more likely to have a negative impact on the company or business in a variety of ways, including increased theft, decreased productiv- ity and quality control, increased incidence of accidents and injuries, increased absenteeism, high turnover rate, and increased costs due to personal problems.

Theft Many security administrators say that drug abuse and theft go hand in hand. Drug users often steal from employers and fellow employees to support their habits. Criminal activities, including vandalism, often result in increased legal costs for the firm. Lawsuits, legal fees, and court costs are added expenses when drug usage leads to theft, vandalism, and other criminal behavior.

Productivity, Quality Control, Accidents, and Injuries Several years ago during a break period, one line employee for a major corporation was slipped drugs in his drink for laughs. The joke got out of control when the employee threw a bucket into a conveyor. Fifty percent of the operation was shut down. The company lost sev- eral hours of work while still paying employees who were idled by the incident. In general,

Table 14-4 Percentage of Full–Time Workers, Ages 18–64, Reporting Illicit Drug Use and Heavy Alcohol Use, by Industry Category, 2002–2004 Combined

Industry Category Percent Illicit Drug Use Percent Alcohol Use

Accommodations and Food Service 16.9 12.0 Construction 13.7 15.9 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 11.6 13.6 Information 11.3 10.4 Management of Companies and Enterprises, Administrative Support, Waste Management, and Remedial Services 10.9 10.4 Retail Trade 9.4 8.8 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 8.8 9.9 Wholesale Trade 8.5 11.5 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 8.0 7.1 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 7.5 9.8 Mining 7.3 13.3 Utilities 3.8 10.1

Source: Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA (2007). National Survey on Drug Use and Health Report: Worker Substance Use, by Industry Category.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 357

substance abusers, as compared to nonabusers, are involved in many more job mistakes and are more likely to have lower output, and work shrinkage.27

Substance abusers also experience three to four times more on-the-job accidents and are responsible for 40 percent of all industrial fatalities.28 A study reported in the Journal of American Medical Association found those employees who tested positive for cocaine or mari- juana had a significantly higher rate of on-the-job accidents and injuries.29

Instances of workplace substance use have set the stage for potential disaster, and in some cases, death. In 1991 a New York subway operator crashed his train near a station in Manhattan; 5 people were killed and 215 others were injured. The operator admitted that he had been drinking prior to the crash. His blood alcohol content was found to be 0.21— more than twice the legal limit.30 In July, 2002, two America West pilots were fired after being stopped at the gate by security personnel. The security personnel smelled alcohol on their breath and stopped the two pilots from boarding the 124-passenger airliner. Both pilots pos- sessed blood alcohol levels over the legal limit for pilots (0.04).31 In 2010, thirteen Detroit auto workers were dismissed after being caught on video smoking and drinking during their lunch hour.32 Most recently, an air traffic controller was removed from duty after failing a random drug test for alcohol.33

Absenteeism and Turnover Rates Overall, substance abusers are late to work three to four times more often, absent five to seven times more often, and are three to four times more likely to be absent for longer than eight consecutive days. Also, they use three times more sick leave.34 When specific drug use is exam- ined, a study found that employees who were marijuana or cocaine users had a higher rate of absenteeism (78 percent and 145 percent more absenteeism, respectively) as compared with other employees.35

The substance that causes the greatest problem with tardiness, absenteeism and lost work days is alcohol. In an attempt to personalize the amount of loss for an industry, The George Washington University Medical Center36 has developed an online “Alcohol Cost Calculator,” in which a company can enter specific information about their industry and geographic location to calculate the number of potential alcohol abusers, health care costs and work day losses. For example, according to the calculator, a West Virginia mining company with 500 employees would have an estimated 52 problem drinkers, who would create 11 days work loss per month at a cost of $24,077. Alcohol related health-care costs are estimated at $302,864. The Alcohol Cost Calculator can be accessed at: www.alcoholcostcalculator.org/business.

Substance abusers also have higher turnover rates. According to a nationwide study of full-time workers ages 18 to 64, of those who reported past month illicit drug use, 12.3 percent reported working for three or more employers in the past year, whereas only 5.1 percent of workers with no past month drug use reported working at three or more jobs in the previous year. Variation occurred depending on the industry and occupation.37

Personal Problems Approximately half the employees who have personal problems are substance abusers of one type or another. Substance abusers use three times more medical benefits, file five times as

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.alcoholcostcalculator.org/business

358 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

many workers’ compensation claims, and increase premiums for the entire company for medi- cal and psychological insurance. Also, substance abusers are seven times more likely to experi- ence wage garnishments and are more often involved in grievance procedures, taking up both union and organization time and resources.38

Using a Comprehensive Substance Abuse Program

In order to address substance use problems in the workplace, the federal government passed the Drug Free Workplace Act in 1988. Companies administering federal grants and contracts are obligated to follow the Act’s guidelines, listing countermeasures to reduce the costs asso- ciated with employee drug uses and abuse. The Drug Free Workplace Act, which was subse- quently updated in 1994, 1998, and 2004, sets forth the following requirements:

1. Development of a clear drug-free workplace policy. This policy must clearly state the reason it is needed (for example, safety, product quality), the company’s expectations regarding employee behavior, the rights and responsibilities of employees, and the type of action that will be taken if drug use or possession is suspected or discovered.

2. Establishment of continuing drug education and awareness programs. Firms are expected to provide educational programs aimed at ensuring that employees understand the drug policies and their consequences. In addition, supervisors must be trained to identify and deal with employees suspected of drug use or possession.

3. Implementation of an employee assistance program (EAP) or other appropriate mechanism. Through the employee assistance program, the employer is able to help employees who have a substance abuse problem rather than resort to immediate termination. This is accomplished by referral for evaluation and treatment/rehabilitation. There are many ways to set up an EAP, including establishing a program at or near the work site or buying EAP services from an outside provider.

4. Reporting to the federal government any convictions related to drug crimes.

While not all private industries are required to follow these guidelines, companies have found it cost effective to implement a comprehensive drug program and provide employee drug education and treatment. In their book, Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness, Bennett and Lehman39 outline various components of drug programs that demonstrate promise in dealing with workplace substance abuse. The authors believe when substance abuse is addressed from a holistic and humanistic perspective, the cost-bene- fit ratio of substance abuse education and treatment is greatly improved.

By providing treatment and retaining an employee who abuses drugs, a company not only reduces employee replacement costs, but provides major savings with reduced interpersonal conflicts, enhanced workplace productivity, and lowered drug-related accidents. Dealing with a substance abuse problem can yield up to a 12 to 1 cost-savings ratio when expenses related to drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, theft, and health care are considered.40 Information on development of policies and procedures for a comprehensive substance abuse program can be obtained from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Workplace Helpline (1-800-WORKPLACE).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 359

Drug Testing

To strengthen national safety related to workplace drug use, the Omnibus Transportation Testing Act was passed in 1991. As a result of the Act, public safety and national security per- sonnel involved in aviation, trucking, railroads, mass transit, and other transportation indus- tries are subject to drug testing requirements. Additionally, the Department of Defense (DOD), United States Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have devel- oped drug testing policies due to the safety-sensitive nature for a number of their contracted industries.

Many other private-sector businesses have initiated some type of drug testing (pre/post- hire, random, or following an incident) in order to reduce problems associated with employee drug abuse. The words “Must have a clean drug history” may discourage those who have drug problems from ever applying. In SAMHSA’s findings on worker substance use,41 1 out of 5 workers who reported illicit drugs last month would be less likely to work for an employer who conducted pre-hire testing than workers who did not report illicit drug use (18.2% vs. 3.7 %, respectively).

According to a 2004 survey of 506 businesses conducted by the American Management Association,42 nearly 63 percent of those surveyed said they had a workplace drug testing pro- gram. Additionally, a national survey of workers 43 reported that of the workers coming from an industry with over 500 employees, 70 percent said drug testing programs were in place; how- ever, percentages did vary by occupational category (see Table 14-5).

For companies who do drug testing, the rate of positive results has declined over the years. In 1988, 13.6% of drug tests were positive, but in 2010, there was a positive return rate of only 3.6%.44

Preemployment Drug Testing When companies conduct preemployment screening they should adopt the following guidelines:

Table 14-5 Percentage of Full-Time Workers, Ages 18–64, Reporting Workplace Drug Testing Programs, by Major Occupation Categories, Selected: 2002–2004, Combined

Occupation Category During Hiring Random

Protective Services 76.2 61.8 Transportation and Material Moving 73.3 62.9 Production Occupations 63.1 40.9 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 57.4 42.0 Engineering, Architecture, and Repair 52.7 35.1 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 52.5 30.9 Office and Administrative Support 46.6 29.5 Construction and Extraction 34.7 31.9 Food Preparation and Serving Related 26.3 20.6 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 17.3 9.9

Source: Larson, Eyerman, & Gfroerer, Office of Applied Statistics, SAMHSA, (2007).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

360 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

1. Notify the applicant of the company’s policy of drug screening. 2. Make sure the test results are valid by using a reputable laboratory. The Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Administration maintains a list of certified laboratories.45

3. Ensure confidentiality.

Postemployment Drug Testing As with all policies, the key is that the policy is well written and communicated to the employ- ees in a clear manner. Expectations regarding the use of drugs and the penalties associated with that use must be clearly stated. The policy should specify under what conditions an employee will be expected to submit to drug testing (for example, after an on-the-job accident).

All policies and procedures for drug testing should: (1) be consistently administered; (2) explain prescription drug use, including what types of drugs need to be declared to company supervisors; (3) require substantive proof of drug use; and (4) be consistent with statutory or reg- ulatory requirements, collective bargaining agreements, and disability discrimination provisions.

Types of Drug Tests Through drug testing it is possible to identify the use of a variety of drugs, both illicit and licit. Substances that may be tested for are alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, marijuana, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, natural and synthetic opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), and testosterone-like anabolic steroids.

Once introduced into the body, drugs are biotransformed and eventually eliminated from the body through excretion. The presence of drugs or their metabolites can be detected in urine, blood, sweat, saliva, hair, and nails through various types of testing technology.

The most widely used method is urine testing. Urine is easy to collect and concentrations of drugs and metabolites tend to be higher, allowing longer detection times. Table 14-6 provides a listing of common drugs and the number of days that they are typically detectable in urine.46

Unfortunately, the high-profile publicity surrounding drug testing has allowed violators to develop a counter-educational movement in an attempt to beat the screening systems. Smuggling urine into the bathroom is widely practiced. With careful monitoring, this should be almost impossible; however, some employees have devised very clever schemes that may escape notice, such as carrying a plastic bag of “clean” urine under the arm. In addition, users of cocaine know that it stays in the system for a maximum of 72 hours; thus it is possible to abstain prior to urine testing so that the test results are negative for cocaine use.

Any one of three basic formats for drug testing is common. The first and most popular is enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The EIA uses urine samples and can be used to screen for up to 10 drugs. A second format is the radioimmunoassay (RIA). While similar to EIA, it uses radio- activity as an indicator for a positive test rather than a color change. While the costs of drug tests can vary greatly, a conservative estimate of costs for these two tests is between $25–$75 per test.47

The third format is a combination of gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS). This test is 99.9 percent accurate and is the only test accepted by most courts as prima facie evidence of drug use. Although it is an extremely accurate test, the GC-MS is not widely used

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 361

for screening purposes due to cost. However, it is often used as a confirming test when positive results are obtained using EIA or RIA.

Other types of screening tests are:

l Thin layer chromatography l Agglutination l Fluorescence polarization immunoassay

Another test is RIAH (radioimmunoassay of hair). This test requires that the individual pro- vide several strands of hair, which are then tested for drugs. The procedure initially involves testing using the radioimmunoassay technique. If the results are positive, a confirming test is performed using the extremely accurate gas chromatography/mass spectrometry technique.

Major advantages of this test are listed below.

l The collection, transportation, preservation, and storage of hair samples are simple and relatively nonintrusive processes as compared to other types of drug testing.

l It is less prone to tampering. l Human hair maintains a 90-day record of drugs ingested by the body, and thus drug use

can be detected as far back as 3 months.

Table 14-6 Detection Period Range Chart (Urine Only)

Drug Time

Alcohol 7–12 hours Amphetamine 48 hours Methamphetamine 48 hours Barbiturate Short-acting (e.g., phentobarbitol) 24 hours Long-acting (e.g., phenobarbitol) 3 weeks Benzodiazepines Short-acting (e.g., lorazepam) 3 days Long-acting (e.g., diazepam) 30 days Cocaine metabolites 2–4 days Marijuana Single use 3 days Moderate use (4 times/wk) 5–7 days Daily use 10–15 days Long term heavy smoker >30 days Opioids Codeine 48 hours Heroin (morphine) 48 hours Hydromorphone 2–4 days Methadone 3 days Morphine 48–72 hours Oxycodone 2–4 days Propoxyphene 6–48 hours Phencyclidine 8 days

Source: Moeller, et al. (2008).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

362 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

l A laboratory can determine the date when a drug was last used within 7 days. l Hair can also be matched to the owner with the exactness of fingerprints. l Contrary to popular belief, the use of special shampoos cannot “beat the test,” because the

analysis is performed on the cortex of the hair.

Although RIAH test results have been challenged in court, it has predominantly been judged to be a valid and reliable test.48 Prevalence of RIAH testing in the workplace has been increasing in the past few years, in part because of the advantages mentioned above, as well as the fact that it has become less expensive. The average cost is approximately $45. Companies such as General Motors and Anheuser-Busch routinely use RIAH for drug testing.

Another relatively noninvasive test is oral swabbing. Swabbing the mouth for oral fluids/saliva offers the advantage of an observed collection and is easily administered. There are no known adulterants that can be used to tamper with oral fluid testing.49 Because swabbing can detect drug use one hour after ingestion, it may be a preferred method following a workplace incident.

Drug Testing Process Businesses have a number of ways they accomplish the task of drug testing. One option is to contract with a certified laboratory to collect all specimens and oversee the testing. Others have employees report to health facilities where specimens are collected and forwarded to cer- tified laboratories. A final option for initial drug screening is to utilize company medical per- sonnel to collect specimens from the employee.

The advent of disposable urine test kits that provide quick results has made internal drug screening an economical choice for many companies. The Georgia Department of Corrections uses a urine test cup that provides immediate results and reduces their cost from $22.50 for a laboratory test to $7 per test cup.50 Non-confirmed negative results are forwarded to a labora- tory for further testing.

Drug testing is an effective method to reduce drug problems in the work environment. It not only screens out drug abusers at the time of hiring, but allows employers to detect drug abuse among current employees. The rights of individual privacy are often of less significance than the importance of public health and safety. With appropriate policies and procedures, the accuracy of drug testing is greatly enhanced. This includes having a chain of custody for han- dling the specimen, a policy for a second confirming test for all positive results from the initial screen, and use of a medical officer to review the results.

Additional Methods In addition to drug testing, some companies have also adopted the use of undercover opera- tives to discover possible drug trafficking and use. Some firms use camera systems, ranging from simple hidden cameras to more elaborate hidden or open observations.

Spotting Drug Use

Watching for drug use or intoxication on the job is not easy because there are many different types of drugs and drug-dependent people. Reactions differ with the type of drug and often

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 363

with the personality and problems of the individual user. In addition, there are medical condi- tions that present symptoms similar to those displayed by drug abuse. Table 14-7 provides a list of signs and behaviors related to possible drug abuse.51,52 It is important to remember that, if an employee displays these signs, it may or may not mean there is a drug problem, but the pos- sibility should be considered.

Following is a sample of paraphernalia used by drug abusers:

Marijuana Pipes in cylinders made to look like a permanent marker.

Crack Cocaine A simple aluminum drink can is crushed in the middle, and holes are punched in the can with a nail. Crack is placed over the holes and lighted. The user smokes the can by inhaling the smoke through the open tab end of the can. When the user is finished, the can is discarded.

Cocaine Small vials are often placed in the employee’s wallet, along with supporting paraphernalia such as a straw, a pocket mirror, and a razor blade. In addition, small safes made to look like soft drink cans or fire extinguishers are becoming popular hiding places.

Other Methods Drug users have long used tin foil, prescription bottles, and zip-top bags.

Summary As the statistics clearly indicate, workplace violence has decreased 62% from 1993 to 2002. In fact, from 2002 to 2009, workplace violence has further decreased by an additional 35%. Unfortunately, shootings account for 80% of workplace homicides with strangers committing the greatest number of workplace violent acts. In 2009, there were 521 workplace homicides

Table 14-7 Indications of Possible Drug Abuse

Arriving late, leaving early and/or often absent Unreliable and often away from assigned job Careless and repeatedly making mistakes/reduced productivity Argumentative and uncooperative Unwilling or unable to follow directions Avoiding responsibility Indifference to personal hygiene Making excuses that are unbelievable or placing blame elsewhere Taking unnecessary risks by ignoring safety and health procedures Frequently involved in mishaps and accidents or responsible for damage to equipment or property Overt physical signs such as unexplained exhaustion, hyperactivity, dilated pupils, bloodshot or glassy eyes, slurred speech, or an unsteady walk

Source: America Council for Drug Education and US Depart of Labor.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

364 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

mostly against middle-aged males. Regardless of the number, these figures are still too high. Organizations’ efforts through VIACT programs, manager training and other prevention plans have had the desired positive impact. However, organizations large and small continue to look for better ways to diagnose early signs of aberrant behavior the fostering the goal of reducing major workplace violence incidents.

Drugs in the workplace continue to be a concern as is alcohol abuse, many times contribut- ing to the violence issue as well as to absenteeism and substandard performance. Testing of applicants and tenured employees is becoming more widespread. The loss of time on the job as well as job-related injuries caused by drug and alcohol impairment has brought these issues to the forefront. Security must continue to monitor the workplace for illegal drug use and make sure that employees with problems are either placed into employee assistance programs or, when illegal activity is discovered, discharged and criminally prosecuted.

CRITICAL THINKING Although drug use is illegal, some people believe it is a personal decision and should not be penal- ized. Shouldn’t workers have the option of using drugs whenever or wherever they choose? If they are impaired at work or become violent, the employer should terminate their employment, not send them to assistance programs! Consider the above statement and comment.

Review Questions 1. What is a VIACT? 2. Can the potential for violence be identified? 3. What are the steps that should be taken before an intervention is initiated? 4. What is an EAP? 5. Name the various typologies of possible problem employees. 6. Name at least three things that an employer should look for that could indicate possible

drug use on the job. 7. Is there any difference in the incidence of drug abuse among various types of jobs? If so,

which occupations have the greatest problems? 8. What are the major problems associated with drug abuse and the workplace?

References [1] www.sba.gov

[2] Violence in the workplace. National Crime Victimization Survey March 2011.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kinney J. Violence at work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1995. p. 1.

[5] Violence in the workplace. December 2001.

[6] Workplace violence. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, down- loaded January 28, 2003, <www.osha.gov/oshinfo/priorities/violence.html>. BLS August 2009.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.sba.gov

http://www.osha.gov/oshinfo/priorities/violence.html

Chapter 14 l Violence and Drug Use in the Workplace 365

[7] Mantell M. Ticking bombs: defusing violence in the workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Publishing; 1994. p. 53.

[8] Fatalities to young workers and all workers by event and exposure. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, down- loaded January 28, 2003, <www.stats.bls.gov>.

[9] Labig C. Preventing violence in the workplace. NewYork: AMACOM; 1995.

[10] Yates RE. The healing manager. San Diego Union 1993. p. Cl.

[11] Mantell, Ticking bombs. p. 136.

[12] Ibid., p. 33.

[13] Baron A. Violence in the workplace: a prevention and management guide for business. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing of California; 1993. p. 88.

[14] Labig, Preventing violence in the workplace. p. 16.

[15] Kinney, Violence at work. p. 125.

[16] Mantell, Ticking bombs. p. 1.

[17] Baron, Violence in the workplace. p. 139.

[18] Walters DC. San Diego state masters project. Violence in the workplace–a prevention and intervention education guide for management; 1996.

[19] National drug intelligence center (2011). The economic impact of illicit drug use on American society. Washington D.C.: United states department of justice. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from <http://www.justice. gov/ndic/pubs44/44731/44731p.pdf>.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Harwood H. Updating estimates of the economic costs of alcohol abuse in the united states: estimates, update methods and data. 2000. Report prepared by the Lewin group for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Retrieved July1, 2011 from <http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/eco- nomic-2000/alcoholcost.pdf>.

[22] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results of the 2009 national survey on drug use and health: Vol I. Summary of national findings (Office of applied studies, NSDUH series H-38A, HHS publication No. SMA 1004586 findings). Rockville, MD; 2010.

[23] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of applied studies (2007). The NSDUH report: worker substance use by industry category. Rockville, MD. Retrieved June 30, 2011 from <http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/industry/worker.htm>.

[24] Larson SL, Eyerman J, Foster MS, Gfroere JC. Worker substance use and workplace policies and programs. (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4273, Analytic Series A-29). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies; 2007. Retrieved July 9, 2011 from <http://www. oas.samhsa.gov>.

[25] Frone MR. Prevalence and distribution of illicit drug use in the workforce and in the workplace: findings and implications from a U.S. national survey. J Appl Psychol 2006;91(4):856–69.

[26] Quest diagnostics (2011). Drug testing index. Retrieved July 14, 2011 from <http://www.Questdiagnostics. com/employersolutions/dti/2011_01/dti_index.html>.

[27] Inaba DS, Cohen WE. Uppers, downers, all arounders. 6th ed. Medford, Or: CNS Productions; 2007.

[28] Inaba DS, Cohen WE. 2007.

[29] Zwerling C, Ryan J, Orva E. The efficacy of preemployment drug screening for marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 1990;264(20):2639–43.

[30] Cunradi CB, Ragland DR, Greiner B, Klein M, Fisher JM. Attributable risk of alcohol and other drugs for crashes in the transit industry. Inj Prev 2005;11:378–82.

[31] Polk County, Florida. Airline tells pilots in alcohol arrests they will be fired. (2002), <www.polkonline. com/stories/070402/sta_pilots.shtml>.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og

y. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.stats.bls.gov

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44731/44731p.pdf

http://www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/economic-2000/alcoholcost.pdf

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/industry/worker.htm

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov

http://www.Questdiagnostics.com/employersolutions/dti/2011_01/dti_index.html

http://www.polkonline.com/stories/070402/sta_pilots.shtml

366 INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY

[32] MyFOXDetroit.com (2010, September). Chrysler autoworkers busted. Retrieved July 29, 2011 from <http:// www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/chrysler-auto-workers-busted_20100923_dk>.

[33] Air Safety Week (2011, July). Air traffic controller found drunk on site. Retrieved from <http://www.aviation- today.com/asw/topstories/Air-Traffic-Controller-Found-Drunk-On-Site_73863.html>.

[34] Inaba DS, Cohen WE. 2007.

[35] Zwerling C, Ryan J, Orva E. 1990.

[36] George Washington University Medical Center (n.d.). Ensuring solutions to alcohol problems: what can your company do about costly alcohol problems? Retrieved July 28, 2011 from <http://www.alcoholcost- calculator.org/business/>.

[37] Larson SL, Eyerman J, Foster MS, Gfroere JC. 2007.

[38] Inaba DS, Cohen WE. 2007.

[39] Bennet JB, Lehman WEK, editors. Preventing workplace substance abuse: beyond drug testing to wellness. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association; 2003.

[40] National Institute on Drug Abuse (n.d.). Principles of drug addiction treatment: a research based guide. Retrieved on July 26, 2011 from <www.drugabuse.gov/PODAT/Faqs.html#faq4>.

[41] Larson SL, Eyerman J, Foster MS, Gfroere JC. 2007.

[42] American Management Association (2004). AMA workplace testing survey: medical testing. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from <http://www.Amanet.org/training/whitepapers/2004-Medical-Testing-Survey-17.aspx>.

[43] Larson SL, Eyerman J, Foster MS, Gfroere JC. 2007.

[44] Quest diagnostics. Drug Testing Index; 2011.

[45] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2011, July 12). Current list of laboratories and instrumented initial testing facilities which meet minimum standards to engage in urine drug testing for federal agencies. Fed Regist 76(133). Retrieved from <http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/pdf/ FR071211.pdf>.

[46] Moeller KE, Lee KC, Kissack JC. Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83(1):66–76.

[47] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (n.d.). Drug testing facts and statistics. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from <http://workplace.samhsa.gov/WPWorkit/pdf/ drug_testing_facts_and_stats_FS.pdf>.

[48] McBay A. (1996). Legal challenges to testing hair for drugs: a review. Retrieved from <http://www.big.stpt. usf.edu/~journal/mcbay2.html>.

[49] Quest Diagnostics. Drug Testing Index; 2011.

[50] Gater L. Managing the workplace drug testing process. Corrections Forum 2007;16(6):20–3.

[51] American Council for Drug Education (n.d.). Drugs and Alcohol in the workplace: facts for employers. Retrieved June 6, 2011 from <http://www.acde.org/employer/DAwork.htm>.

[52] United States Department of Labor (n.d.). First line fact sheet: keeping your worksite drug and alcohol free. Retrieved July 5, 2011 from <http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/workingpartners/First-Line_ Fact_Sheet.pdf>.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. E

ls ev

ie r

S ci

en ce

& T

ec hn

ol og