|
provide services which could be handled on an in-house basis just as well. Likewise, we do not provide drug detection canine services, like agencies that deal with high risk clients. Our approach is a cost effective, non-intrusive approach, which has proved effective, particularly in Southern states and rural communities where ethics and so-called family values have not deteriorated. On the other hand, our standard approach has never been attempted in hard-core urban environments where values have eroded, since we suspect it would prove unproductive there.
The L.P.C., Ltd. Drug Substance Abuse Survey:
We have developed a basic survey, which we customize to fit the applicable facility and environment. Basically, the survey is designed to request general information about substance abuse, while not specifically asking that employees name individuals who are part of the problem. We have found that most people believe that "ratting" or "squealing" on someone is a dishonorable act, even if the actions of these others are causing risk. On the other hand, these same people seem to have no objections to pointing us in the right direction, when asked. For instance, although an employee might never consider naming foreman Chico Malo as a drug dealer, the same employee might have no reluctance to identify a drug dealer as an unidentified foreman on the second shift in the shipping area--a position occupied solely by Chico Malo. The fact that these surveys are completely handled by an uninvolved entity (L.P.C., Ltd.) has seemed to inspire better response than any in-house requests for information. Additionally, we have found that by asking the question, "Is there anyone you would suggest we talk to who could assist us in eliminating the substance abuse problem?" gives employees the opportunity to specifically name a drug dealer, while maintaining the illusion that they did not really "fink" on anyone. Each of these projects is different, but in a large enough facility, a study of responses can often precisely pinpoint problem areas and identify probable drug dealers and hazardous users. Employees want this hazard eliminated as much as management and our participation gives them the opportunity to provide meaningful input, without feeling like a "tattletale."
Methodology of L.P.C. ,Ltd. Drug Survey Programs:
After preparing an appropriate survey format, we compose a cover letter draft from the client management to the employees. In union environments, the letter is signed by the union president or representative, as well as plant management. In effect, these letters advise employees of the hazards of working in environments where drugs are in use. Further these letters state that the company (or company and union) feels responsible for doing all it can to eliminate any hazardous conditions. The letter clearly indicates that employees are not expected to name users or even dealers, but it is hoped employees will help out by identifying areas where problems exist, so management (or management and the union) can better handle their responsibilities and eliminate the problem. The letter also specifies that the company will not be getting any detailed information provided to Loss Prevention Concepts, Ltd., but will just be given recaps of information that has been sanitized. These letters and surveys are then mailed to employees at their home addresses, along with a stamped (not metered or postage paid "business reply") return envelope addressed to L.P.C., Ltd. The use of actual stamps seems to improve response. Upon receipt of the responses, L.P.C., Ltd. personnel analyze the data and prepare a report of the analysis.
Follow Up Response:
One of the last questions on these surveys asks employees if they would like to talk to independent private investigators in confidence, either at
|
|
