Talk:Employee assistance program

message: Hello again Alberto,
I was glad to see that another editor came in to clean up the article, but am disappointed to see how you responded to her/his work. It was certainly not "vandalism" or any other scare language you hope to apply to it... it was thoughtful, (more) complete, and included all of your concerns in a more succinct and NPOV kind of way. It was better than what was there before - as such, I have reverted your edit.
Cknoepke (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of Albertoarmstrong's Edit

message: 3) As a suggestion you may want to consider hiring an IT person to give to a brief tutorial.  After tonight, I won't be structuring your comments.  Others are reading these comments and your second last set of comments that you inserted in my edits appear as though I wrote them.  This is highly confusing for others.
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Note #2 to Cknoepke

message: 1) Please sign your posts.
2) Please don't insert sentences into my edits as it appears as I wrote it (particularly when you don't sign them). Your insertions into my Professional Ethics tribunals (Licensing Boards) section are highly confusing.
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Cknoepke

message: "Management or even a union steward (who is hostile towards the target) may leak to the target's co-workers that the target has entered into an EAP to make the target appear unstable and weak thus further undermining and isolating the target[dubious – discuss]."
"Regrettably, too many targets report to us that their union fails them. Either the steward is a bully herself and hates the Target ....." (Bully at Work p. 233)
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd tag

message: Hi Alberto, I've addressed each of your questions inline--- please read below and please respond to my suggestion for a new section.
1) If there are no witnesses, they cannot prove any wrongdoing. This does not mean that EAP counselors routinely do this, though, and telling people they do is false and misleading. Ethics councils are not tribunals either, they are State board sanctions.
2) Again, if there is no evidence of collusion, then punishment is unlikely. However, this does not change that EAP counselors' primary responsibility is to the employee. The fact that this instance has occurred in a few unfortunate circumstances does not mean that it is the standard of practice.
3) Ethics complaints are not legal proceedings, so the involvement of lawyers is fairly uncommon. If a grievance is made against a professional, the State board chooses whether to investigate it or not, and makes recommendations based on their findings. There is rarely, if ever, cost incurred by the complainant.
4) You cannot measure non-events. Therefore, it is impossible to determine how many times any of these things happen, if they happen at all. I'm telling you that making pronouncements about them in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial, is inappropriate. 
5) Respectfully, nothing is that simple. The objective of an encyclopedia entry is to make statements which do not countervail majority circumstance. Especially when the counter-instance is one which is infrequent but represented as wholesale. The above unsigned comments by Cknoepke were moved from a previous section.
:Hi Cknoepke,
:1), 2) and 4) Namie (Bully at Work) thought it was significant enough to discuss it in Bully at Work. In-house EAP concerns were significant enough to have several pages listed in the index.  If you want to challenge this you should contact them as I never wrote the book.
: 3) If an ethical tribunals (boards or whatever)are empowered by an act or regulation it IS a legal proceeding.  I belong to a professional body that is regulated.  Generally, the board has a lawyer to advise them on proper process.  There are legal protocols for submission of evidence, testimony, etc..  If a the compliant or accused are not happy with the board's decision they have the option of appealing to the courts.
:5) My section deals with in-house EAPS.  Again, Namie (Bully at Work) thought it was significant enough to discuss it in Bully at Work. In-house EAP concerns were significant enough to have several pages listed in the index.  If you want to challenge this you should contact them as I never wrote the book.
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cknoepke Response - Professional Ethics tribunals (Licensing Boards)

message: Good afternoon Cknoepke,
You keep using the argument that licensing boards will maintain confidentiality.  But that may sound "professional" and "impressive" but its not what it appears to be for the following reasons:
1) If an HR manager and an in-house EAP counselor discuss a bullied employee inappropriately over coffee, at the water cooler, etc. and there are no witnesses how is a bullied employee suppose to prove that in front of a ethics tribunal?
2) If a EAP counselor asks a question(s) on behalf of management and there are no witnesses how is a bullied employee suppose to prove that?  Unless the bullied employee has witnesses or documented proof that the EAP counselor breached confidentially the chances of winning a judgment against an EAP counselor are slim.
3) The bullied employee may choose to have a lawyer represent them, and most likely the EAP counselor will have a lawyer.  So, if the bullied employee doesn't have Prima facie evidence they will most likely lose - not because the EAP counselor was clean, but because the evidence was inadequate.  In this situation, the bullied employee would have to obviously cover their own legal cost but would also be liable for the EAP counselor's legal defense costs and maybe the tribunal member's costs.  My guess is that the total cost would be at least $10,000.  So, this "protects" the "mildly and infrequent" unethical EAP counselor from having complaints filed against them.
4) After a counselor gets duped into doing this once and then accused, they'd mostly likely avoid the mistake the second time, or may be just get better at covering their tracks.
So, things are not that simple.
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional Ethics tribunals (Licensing Boards)

message: Hello Alberto,
Thank you for all of the work you put into finding those quotes, references, etc. It's clear that this is a topic for which you have a great passion.
Re Field: I am not disputing that progressive discipline policies or other termination procedures can be bizarre, unfair, or rife with bullying, nor am I suggesting that workplace bullying doesn't occur. What I am saying is that Field doesn't directly state that EAPs are a frequent, structural tool of these bizarre/unfair procedures, and indicating that he does draw that connection is at best original synthesis (therefore making its inclusion in this section inappropriate as it is non-encyclopedic), and at worst a misattribution.
You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider who has education, credentials, and licensure as a behavioral health professional. While I am aware that internal EAPs don't always employ professional social workers, psychologists, counselors, etc., I do know that their mandates and procedures should be available to all employees. I am also aware that all aspects of behavioral health services, especially those provided by credentialed professionals, are protected health information under HIPPA (the same Federal privacy laws regulating medical practice), which represents a real mechanism of enforcement with respect to confidentiality.
Counter to what you've stated, I am also aware that the vast majority of employees who come into contact with EAP providers do so of their own volition, often without the knowledge of their supervisors or anyone else at their workplace - they do so to access confidential, free services to address a problem they have identified in their own lives. It's these people who I am concerned about reading the section we have been discussing.
Perhaps we can come to a consensus this way: We could collectively scrap this section and replace it with one called "criticisms", "concerns", "considerations" or something else like that. In this section, we could include information that people who are accessing their EAP should make sure they are aware of with specific regard to the model of EAP employed by their company, including the confidentiality requirements, the policies related to mandated referrals (if the employee has been sent to the EAP as a condition of his/her continued employment). We could include the concerns Namie identifies in a way in which an individual could use this information to figure out the best questions to ask so that they can make the determination themselves about whether this is the right avenue of care for them, in their specific circumstances. This is information both that I would (professionally) advise people to have and would be much more balanced that what presently exists. This would also remove my concerns about making blanket, unverifiable statements about an entire professional sector and allow people to use the information in a straightforward way.
PS: (Sorry for the addition, I am new to Wiki and just noticed your previous comment)
In short, yes, I do believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, confidentiality is maintained even when people from HR and EAP providers are friends and they get coffee together, etc. It's a tricky business, but conscientious practitioners go to extremely great lengths to protect the information entrusted to them. There are certainly instances where confidentiality is breached, but that's why there are rules, regulations, ethical guidelines, and professional reprocussions for individuals who break them. An analogy (albeit an admittedly clumsy one) might be murder by a spouse. Of course there are horrible instances where it occurs, and each instance of that should be dealt with swiftly and effectively (and there are mechanisms for doing so). This does not, however, mean that an ostensibly encyclopedic entry related to marriage should include a section telling people that they are likely to be killed by their spouse. 
Cknoepke (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: January 5, 2010 Cknoepke

message: Good afternoon Cknoepke,
As per the index (similar to the Namie pg. references) here are some key quotes:
In order to get into the manager's good books, everyone is invited (compelled) to assess (snitch on) each other. Those who provide the reports (tales) closests to what the manager wants to hear attain favourable status. those that don't find their lives made increasingly difficult ......" p. 99 (This addresses the "ratting" issue that 
you raised)
"The Diversionary Dismissal - In order to justify an employer's action (for example dismissal) against an individual where there are few, inadequate or no grounds for that action, prodigious - and sometimes bizarre - efforts are expanded to support and vindicate the decision." p. 104 and 105
"Victims of bullying are usually hard workers, frequently taking on high workloads and achieving considerable success." p. 144 (This ties into the envy motivation)
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bully in Sight (Field) References

message: Good morning Cknoepke,
Pages 114 - 116 and 232, 233 discuss EAP's.  Pages 116 - 18, 149, 233 discuss unions.  Some key quotes:
"Here are some of the disturbing trends we have learned through direct experience and from visitors to our website who report the following EAP traps for the unsuspecting employee."
"When counselors are no longer independent contractors, they become accountable to management and fall under company control. They lose their neutrality and ability to see oppression in the workplace."
"Confidentially is comprised.  Furthermore, on-site counselors' time is subject to exploitation by managers seeking tips for dealing with troublesome employees."
"However, supervisor referral, the most frequently used EAP service, demonstrates that management views counseling as punishment to straighten out the employee ...."
"Peer counselors with dubious qualifications."
"HR is not your friend - the department serves management, not you.  HR, EEO, and EAP are not impartial truth seekers.  They have a job to do which does not include representing your interests." p. 233
"Regrettably, too many targets report to us that their union fails them.  Either the steward is a bully herself and hates the Target ....." p. 233 
"No. 2 reason For Being Bullied:  "Bully envy" of the Target's skill knowledge, to ability to work with people (reported by 21 percent of respondents" p. 41  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoarmstrong (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bully at Work (Namie) References (1st Edition)

message: Hi Cknoepke,
I was careful only to identify in-house EAP's rather than all EAP's. 
It appears that Wiki is being used by EAP entities as an advertising platform.  The Employee Assistance Professionals Association article (linked to this article) has a banner that states: This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use to mark for speedy deletion. (December 2008)" and, unfortunately, it appears this article was written this way as well.
Other than my contribution, the this article has no citations.  I suspect the reason why the contributions are not cited is because they were pulled from EAP advertisement brochures.
You claim my contribution is "false", but I referenced it. But you imply your claim is 'fact" but its unreferenced. How do you reconcile these?
You dismissed my contribution as uncommon, but the the "Bully at Work" text I cited clearly indicates otherwise.  You may want to consider ordering a copy and read it for yourself.  My "Bully In Sight" reference is a secondary reference.
The basis for your argument against my contribution is both unreferenced and ad hominem and Wiki frowns on these practices.
Sorry, but I won't be removing anything.  What I put up is of value to any unsuspecting bullied employee who may unwittingly enrolled in such an in-house EAP program.
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Cknoepke

message: :Brookfield
  
:The Workplace Bullying section is supported by 2 credible citations (at the end), whereas the rest of the article has no citations and there is even a Sept 2008 banner stating such at the top of the page that was posted prior to my recent involvement.  If you're going to delete based on lack of citations, then you should delete all the other sections (but my Workplace Bullying section). It is not "a simple rant" as I used 2 citations (the only citations in the entire article), but it appears you never bothered to read the section carefully. 
:Aside from my contribution, it appears this article is "promotional material" so the "false baseline of neutrality" was in place before me.  So, I would argue the contributions prior to my involvement were non-neutral (plus no citations - didn't you even notice the 3 citation flags?).
:Your attack on my credibility is ad hominem and Wiki frowns on this practice.
:Albertoarmstrong (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Brookfield

message: Several paragraphs regarding the downsides of EAPs were contributed from 69.136.151.251 on 2006-04-05.  These additions offered a valuable perspective on the use of EAPs, but I believe they pushed the article away from a NPOV.   So, I've taken key points from the additions and reworked them into the article; my hope is that this preserves valid criticisms of EAPs while maintaining a NPOV.
- Davnor 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Discussions