Individual agreements for recovery from substance misuse. Employees’ response and experience of regulatory aspects.
Background: Being employed is fundamental for personal identity and growth, for a secure financial situation and important for social inclusion in society. Misuse of alcohol, use of illicit drugs or addiction to gambling impact work performance negatively and may jeopardise the employment agreement. In safety-sensitive positions, an employee’s substance use may pose a serious risk to other people. Ensuring that as many people as possible have a work connection is an important goal for all welfare states. As a tool to help substance abusers to recover and keep their job position, an individual recovery agreement (IRA) may be a solution. In some situations, an IRA may be the only solution for the employee to stay in the job, such as “last-chance-agreements” in the US working life. The IRA is an agreement between the employer and the employee, where the employer offers support and help to deal with the employee’s substance use and/or addiction problem. Drug testing and meetings are generally recommended as part of the IRA, but little is known about which regulatory aspects are set out in the agreements. Aims: What types of regulatory aspects are specified in participants’ IRAs? How is the process of establishing the content of IRAs described? How are regulatory aspects like mandatory drug testing and meetings experienced among employees involved in an IRA?
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants who recently had or currently were enrolled in an individual recovery agreement (IRA) due to alcohol misuse or illicit use (N=26). Of the 24 agreements, 75 % concerned alcohol use while 25 % concerned illegal drugs. The participants were recruited from the Norwegian Workplace Advisory Centre for Drug and Addiction Problems (Akan).
Results (preliminary findings): Common elements reported from IRAs includes drug testing, establishing a group consisting of leaders, health personnel and other relevant actors. In addition to the employee, participants in the follow-up meetings varied in composition. The informants reported various forms of testing (urine or blood tests) and meeting arrangements.
An essential principle for the agreement is that it is based on a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. However, participants reported varied experiences regarding their own involvement and influence in the IRA. The process that led to the IRA and/or the employer's experiences with IRA are factors that need to be further explored. Overall, experiences with drug testing were positive. Some also described testing as a concrete measure of progress, visible both to their employer and themselves. In cases where the IRA were experienced as a control mechanism, all aspects, including testing, were experienced as negative. The duration of the testing was something several participants questioned.
Conclusion: This will follow after analyses have been completed.
