CONSTRUCTIVE COERCION

"CONSTRUCTIVE COERCION"

This was the phrase used by a Director of Medical Services at a large company to describe to a Donwood alumni audience the method used by his company in relation to the alcoholic. This Director was telling something of the work of the May Street Clinic in whose treatment program his company participates.

What the phrase means is this, as far as the Company is concerned: When an employer or supervisor detects the tell-tale signs of alcoholism in an employee, that person is sent to the medical office. He is told that his job is on the line, and that unless he takes treatment he will lose it. Having taken the course of treatment at the clinic, he returns to the job and reports daily to a staff nurse who gives him his antabuse.

If he wishes to remain as an employee of the company, he has no alternative but to comply. This is constructive coercion. The report is that the success rate is high!

The presentation stirred up some lively discussion among our alumni.

Some argued that the method is justified. Certainly, from management's point of view, it is an efficient way of saving their investment in an employee.

But, also from the patient's point of view, there are favourable considerations. The person with the alcohol problem is reluctant to admit there is something here he cannot handle. His "defensive thinking" takes over. Rather than let him stew in his own juice and continue in his sick condition until his life has become unmanageable, the company steps in and says, "Man, you're in trouble. Get Help or else!" By making him take antabuse his sobriety is maintained until (hopefully) his own better judgment supplies the motivation.

Others argued that such coercion takes from the individual his freedom of choice. We believe, they said, that the responsibility for his own recovery should not be taken away from the person who is addicted. This is just one more example of "Big Brother" taking over and deciding what is good for you and making you do it. It robs a man of his dignity as a human being.

There are arguments both ways.

What do you think?

DR. GEORGE BIRTCH

DON SAYS: I agree with the principle that since the employee cannot handle his own addiction, outside pressure must be made. It is not only good for the company, but for the individual and his family as well.