HRGuru

I think that the boss should've dealt with it in a less confrontational way.  She had other options, such as getting advice from a counsellor, or even asking the employee to speak to a counsellor to see if she could get help with her stress; anything other than the open accusation.  The employee would be bound to run because of fear and denial, and the problem didn't get resolved, it got shifted.  Plus, now the addict is unemployed with a very expensive habit.  That's a guaranteed tragedy. The loss in time and money, as well as the loss in office efficiency whilst they tried to hire and train her replacement are bad enough, but not as bad as what she will now face, when she could've gotten help from people who were most capable of supplying it.  The company's health plan should've been able to help her, and there should've been a scheme in place for those who had mental health and drug addiction issues.  Those should've been accessed first.   

For any manager, a change in behavior should send up a red indicating that something is wrong.  If the situation in the article could have been addressed much earlier, the confrontation could have been avoided. 

It the manager could have taken the DISC approach initially, the situation may have turned out much differently.  By the DISC approach I meand, have a meeting with the employee and tell them what a good employee that have been and Describe the behavior that needs to be corrected.  Then Involve the employee by asking what is going on in ther life and what can be done to help them. Next comes being Specific about the behavior change that needs to be made.  Lastly, set you a time in a couple weeks to check for Compliance - has there been a behavior change?

If the above had been done, the situation may have turned out much differently.

I think there was a certain wish not to believe.  After all, how many people sniff aspirin?

What Liz has done is good... But she can handle it in much better way...First she has to handle it in a sensitive way because the issue seems like tht

She has to give her a small counselling....

And she can make ambers mind that she is not a bad person it a small problem she is facong.....

She can come out of that by taking counselling......

If you have a drug poicy, and you should, It should include a "for cause" clause. If I walked in a on a guy doing that I would walk out and notify the super and the safety person and that guy would be taking a trip to the clinic or  if he refused going home for good. No touchy feely stuff needed. An addict would try to use that to their advantage anyway. The behavior change was prior to that and  if someone missed it, it may be too late for you yo do anything about that guy. I have seen so many people get caught and all the lies that they tell to cover it up and justify it that my tolerance is next to nothing.

Bravo Sarah! I have to say that while we are charged with managing behaviors, we have a duty to manage in such a way that it's not impersonal nor hateful. Personally, I can't understand the chains of addition and it is by the grace of God that it's not a battle I have to fight. However, I feel that had the situation in question been dealt with sooner the chance for an alternative ending would have been higher. The behaviors that Amber exhibited were clearly out of line for the expected performance and even though she made up the time it obviously wasn't "ok". I do sense the desire not to believe that something was wrong. While we may want to be compassionate and believe the best in people, we still have an obligation to be realists in the aspect that we can differentiate between emotional bonds and professional bonds. The time to have been compassionate would have been at the first couple of red flags. Intervention could have, at that point, been as simple as someone saying that they cared. (Though doubtful, it may have been possible IN ADDITION to addressing the behaviors.) Given the delay in addressing either the professional or emotional bonds, it was definitely a sticky situation. I think it could have been handled better at the end, especially when Liz caught Amber in the bathroom. That situation really blew the elephant in the room up to gigantic proportions!!

It really is positive that you can still look for that little bit of something that will cause you to give the second chance.  I would say, though, that ten years between offences isn't that bad.  It may be a bit discouraging sometimes when people don't respond the way that we would like them to.  But it really isn't rare for people to stop using drugs overall.  For your area to have such a severe problem must be discouraging for you.  20-25 people really isn't that many, overall, but does seem like alot when you're the one dealing with them.  What percentage of your total employee base would that represent?  If your area has a serious problem, is there any government scheme there that could support you in winning this battle over and above what you yourself have provided?