Talk:Employee assistance program

Revert of Albertoarmstrong's Edit
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)

Alberto - this is the second time you've reverted or otherwise massively changed the article without discussing it on the talk page. Doing so is indicative of a bad faith effort to promote an unbalanced opinion. You can see that I've reverted your edit again, please discuss your changes individually so that I, the other editor who made the more recent changes, or anyone else can understand what you're trying to improve.

Cknoepke (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merging
Hi Albert, After looking at the article with fresh eyes, it's become clear that this section is just not appropriate to the article and should be merged into Wiki's "Workplace Bullying" article. As presently constructed, the section presents an idea which, lets be honest, borders on a fringe theory. Including it in this article, in Wiki parlance, gives undue weight to a minority opinion.

As such, I'm recommending including this information in Workplace Bullying, if it isn't already there. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to tag it with this recommendation, but will do so as soon as I figure it out. Cknoepke (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning,


 * Firstly, it isn't fringe theory as its well documented in multiple sources. Secondly, even if it was "fringe theory" it doesn't appear to be listed as a reason for merging.  Thirdly,  if bullied employee gets dragged into to bogus work performance meeting and it is strongly suggested they enter an EAP and if they wish to learn more about EAP then they going to Google or Wiki "EAP".  So, this article is the most appropriate place for this information.
 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert, It's "fringe" in that it represents the minority view of a topic and only tangentially relates to the specific topic of the article (which is not Workplace Bullying... it's EAPs). As it sits right now, it's far more about Workplace Bullies and far less about EAPs, - therefore, it would be more appropriately placed as an EAP section within the Workplace Bullying article.

Albert, it's painfully obvious that you intend to use this section, within this article, to discredit EAPs. It doesn't matter what your motivation for doing so is, it's not appropriately placed here. Your time and effort would be better spent writing a well sourced, thoughtful, and balanced section addressing debates and concerns about EAPs and their relationship to workplace bullying, free of weasel words and other rhetorical devices which, clearly, are meant to hide the fact that the statements presented are a minority opinion. Cknoepke (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the dual posts, but I just looked at your most recent changes to your references. I appreciate that you are looking through Fields' book to find information, but citing an entire chapter or section doesn't fly. In one change from today, you cited pages 1-63 or something like that. Cite a page or two so that an individual who is looking for that information doesn't have to spend an hour reading to find what you were talking about. Citing huge chunks of text is indicative of original synthesis - if the original author(s) didn't say it directly, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

And it still belongs in Workplace Bullying, not EAPs..... Cknoepke (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Given that you are a contracted EAP provider I guess you have a vested interest in suppressing this information, but you must remember Wiki isn't a platform for advertisement. Also, Wiki encourages different points-of-view to balance out articles so they're neutral.


 * I never "cited" pages 1 - 63 as you claim. On line book retailers like Chapters, Amazon, etc. allow you to preview fixed parts to the book - I just indicated what the preview pages were.
 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert, the fact that this is inappropriately placed doe not mean that there is a conspiracy against you or your message: it means that the section has strayed from a work of scholarship in its present form.

Cite the pages, not the section in the preview. You have cited different specific passages in discussions with me, I'm telling you that the scholarship of the section would be improved by doing the same in the article. Cknoepke (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Alberto,

I see you removed the proposed merging tag - there has been not been a consensus indicating that it should stay and I have therefore restored the tag. I certainly still believe that this section is misplaced and would be more appropriate to the workplace bullying article. I know you disagree, but the tag is staying there. Cknoepke (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * I won't be agreeing to the merger, so its a moot point.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, but the article and the section don't belong to you. I haven't altered the section at all, so it's perfectly reasonable to leave it up. Cknoepke (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You appear to believe article belongs to you. But I started the section and I'm not agreeing to moving it. However, if you wish to move your insert go ahead but leave my edit alone.Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alberto, As much as you like to point out to others that they aren't following wiki-etiquette, you seem not to understand that nothing that is written here belongs to anyone. If you write something either poorly, inaccurately, misleadingly, or in the wrong article (or any combination of all four) it should be changed so that it's written in a way which represents the plurality of viewpoints and the content of each article within the appropriate scope. The fact that you started a section gives you no more right to it than anyone else. Feel free to research wikipedia's statements related to crowdsourced content, but since it's called "wiki", I think we can safely assume that it's supposed to be edited by anyone who feels as if they can improve it.

This isn't a platform for activism. Go start a blog if you want to do that. Cknoepke (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon Cknoepke,


 * I'm sure glad you post on the Discussion page as it shows the true face of EAP. My edit doesn't jive with the marketing spin that was initially up, but Wiki isn't a platform for advertisement.  I'm sure that most readers reading the article will be able to see through the nonsense and distinguish between: the 1) reliable information and 2) marketing spin.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

When your last few responses amount to "no, you are", I think we can safely say that you've run out of constructive things to add. In any other venue, your editorials and contributions would be politely rejected as you, plainly speaking, don't exhibit the level of epistemological understanding or intellectual honesty and discipline required of scholarly writing. I understand that you would like nothing more than for me to attack you as it would justify in your mind your complete and utter disregard for Wikipedia standards and integrity... further evidence that your arguments have run out of gas.

This is not your personal journal, blog, or opinion piece. I think I understand as well as anyone how badly you want to use Wikipedia to drive a dagger into EAPs, using cherrypicked sources to back up an opinion piece, ad hoc. I'll note here that Brookfield and other editors have come to the same conclusions, you simply outlasted their patience and changed that section back to an extraordinarily contrived, slanted piece of editorial after they moved on to other things. You likely believe the fact that their conclusions are similar to mine to be evidence of a conspiracy because that's the the only narrative you're willing to entertain. It's an unfortunate reflection on Wikipedia that these kinds of contributions are given any kind of serious attention, but the crowdsourcing of editing is the only thing keeping everyone honest. Cknoepke (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Workplace Bullying section and continued discussion
Hi Alberto,

I enjoy academic conversations, and especially those in which the importance, relevance, and strength of various points of information or data are discussed in the course of finding an accurate, highly useful piece of scholarship. This is not what this discussion has become.

The section we have been discussing for over a week and a half, despite this discussion, still is written in a very misleading style (through wide use of weasel words and other rhetorical devices) and exhibits a simply poor level of scholarship (in terms of choice and use of references, citation, and accurate attribution). The fact that the rest of the article lacks citations doesn't excuse this.

I have given you a number of specific suggestions and recommendations aimed at improving the scholarship and propriety of the article within an encyclopedic source, but you have fiercely defended your violations of even the most basic tenets of accurate and unbiased writing.

I am happy to continue to work with you to improve the section, but I need a show of good faith from you, as I simply don't have time to continue arguing with someone who is unwilling to learn. The section, as presently constructed, pushes an agenda, uses misleading language, and is poorly sourced - it needs improvement.

Sources citing original data would be the best place to start

Cknoepke (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * From the 3rd edition of Bully at Work (pg. 25), managers are responsible for 72% of bullying incidents.


 * http://www.scribd.com/doc/18412018/The-Bully-at-Work


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

From the 2nd edition of Bully at Work (pg. 274), supervisors and above account for 81% of incidents.

http://www.amazon.com/Bully-Work-What-Reclaim-Dignity/dp/1570715343#reader_1570715343

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 Bully At Work (3rd ed)
From the most recent edition (this link reveals a sample of the content):

"Your current or former employer may offer employee assistance (EAP). However, many counselors have trouble honoring confidentiality or feel sympathetic to the employer who pays their contract.  It is preferred that you find an independent mental health professional." (pg. 101)

and,

"So don't let a therapist bully you and worsen your mental health." (pg 104)

http://books.google.ca/books?id=onHFl6ljHFwC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=eap+bully+at+work&source=bl&ots=iBqsG1YrUV&sig=NBlcofNmgkgojaMGS2cex6Tumyk&hl=en&ei=sqAoTc_pMMbAnAfBkYSFAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=eap%20bully%20at%20work&f=false

Also, I think the copy I have is the 1st edition (2000)so there appears to be new material. I plan on ordering it.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So is it the bosses or the therapists who are the bullies? This why accurate attribution is important: it prevents people from conflating one group with another and one idea with another that is not supported empirically.

I mentioned "weasel words" because saying "research indicates" without proper citation is one of their main examples. Please find a source using original data if you want to keep such statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cknoepke (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * A definition of workplace bullying (or workplace mobbing) is:


 * "Psychological terror in working life involves hostile and unethical communications directed in a systematic manner by one or more individuals mainly towards on individual who, due to mobbing, is pushed into a helpless and defenseless position and held there by means of continued mobbing activities......" (p.256 Namie, link provided above)


 * So, the EAP becomes part of the bullying/mobbing when they provide HR confidential information (i.e. unethical communications).


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

References - Bully At Work and Respectful Workplace
Save your sanctimony and check your definition of misrepresentation. I changed the beginnings of your sentences (in the article) to represent the fact that they reflect assertions Fields and Namie make without changing what any of those assertions are. I additionally cleaned up some grammatical construction problems, as well as included a clarifying point about Fields definition of "triangulation" (which I actually thought you would like). This allows a reader to objectively and accurately interpret those statements as they are: the assessments of one author (as each individual statement is not verified between sources) within a chorus of other voices.

The other instance truly was a mistake - I have removed the tag from the Namie reference, although it remains on the Respectful Workplace reference, as that seems to have been crowbarred into the paragraph to lend false credibility to a statement that is impossible to verify (i.e. it doesn't state that worksite presentations typically, usually, etc place blame for workplace issues on employees by insinuating that work problems are the result of unawareness by management- there is no way to know what these presentations typically involve as they are geographically disparate and authored by any number of different individuals and organizations).

You are not a victim here, and your invocation of Wiki scare language which is irrelevant to the discussion has truly become tiresome. This is how you accurately and objectively report individual statements and truth claims in a scholarly context.

(Reposted and edited from below)

Cknoepke (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * You inserted a series of falsehoods into my edits to make it appear I wrote them so you could falsely attack these fabricated false statements. That is very twisted. Its no problem to trace what you did.  As you're new to Wiki you probably don't know that option exists, but the evidence is there for everybody to see.


 * You should research what Wiki's policy is on vandalism.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alberto,

The reference "Respectful Workplace" does not corroborate your assertion that workplace presentations "imply that bullying is co-worker(s) on co-worker that occurs only because management is unaware of the situation". I have thus added the failed verification tag to that reference.

The Bully at Work reference links to a book that has not yet been released. Please amend or remove. Cknoepke (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * That's bizarre.


 * You edit my first paragraph to misrepresent what I wrote and referenced. Then, you put a citation tag up stating that EAP isn't in  the Field text.  As I said before, EAP isn't discussed in the Field text.


 * Wiki frowns on vandalism.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cknoepke,

The book definitely exists because I've owned a copy for several years. This book has gone through a series of editions (at least 3). Here's a link to reader reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/Bully-Work-What-Reclaim-Dignity/product-reviews/1570715343/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

No where in those respectful workplace links I provided does it mention that bullying is done primarily by bosses but research clearly indicates that is the reality, so it implies a cover-up. I've drew attention to that fact. Also, I've witnessed theses presentations and the EAP presenters have never once high-lighted that reality. Do you think a in-house EAP counselor that is a manager is going to stand up in front of staff and say that 89% of bullying is done by management?

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the Respectful workplace link: The way you formatted your citation makes it look like you were supporting the statement that "most presentations involve xyz", which is not only not covered, but unverifiable. The presentation you went to does not represent all presentations everywhere, regardless of how much you want it to. If you meant to support your statement about the proportion of bullies who are bosses, then find a primary source (journal article or professional research report) supporting that number.

Re the book and different editions: if you are citing the other addition, that's fine, just provide reference material to the edition you actually used. Editions do change over time and citing a newer edition than you actually used is intellectually dishonest as it represents your information as newer than it actually is. Cknoepke (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning Cknoepke,


 * I did a Google search yesterday for "respectful workplace" and got 100's of hits. They all say basically the same. I put one up has an example.  Putting up 100 or so ref links that all say basically the same serves no purpose.


 * It is common for books to go through several editions with minor changes and most people know that. I don't have the book with me at the moment but I'll post the edition in the next few days.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberto,

Sophistry is not reality, and finding links does not mean that geographically and professionally disparate presentations have the same content, you simply can't prove that in a scholarly sense.

Find an original source that states that 89% of workplace bullies are bosses, then you can post that information.

People know that editions exist, but the point of a reference list is to allow the reader to assess the validity of your original source and go find it if they would like to learn more. They can't go find an edition that doesn't come out for 5 months, nor could you have used that edition to source an article.

Cknoepke (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, it might help you to review Wiki's description of "weasel words". It's a good primer to avoiding the kind of scholarly/logical fallacies which are prevalent in your section. Cknoepke (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference - Employee Attitudes Towards an Internal Employee Assistance Program
Hello Cknoepke,

Your reference: http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/soci/marontate/2006/Students02/BartelDom/appendix/appendixg.pdf Employee Attitudes Toward an Internal Employee Assistance Program, Harlow

The conclusion of this study states: "Because the results of the study were specific to one EAP organization, any generalizations of the findings must be made with caution." pg.147 Your drawing a generality from N=1.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated below, so are you. Cknoepke (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Cknoepke, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoarmstrong (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that you removed the direct quote I inserted at the end of your paragraph. Nothing like censoring the truth.


 * The "Bully at Work" and "Bully In Sight" are based on numerous references so I'm doing a lot better than N=1.


 * Also, if employees distrust the EAP they tend to avoid it. So, its failure is its success.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Read my other comment below. I don't know whether it was you or Fields who is doing so, but to report a single set of observations as though they represent general and dogmatic truth is intellectually disingenuous. Representing Field's work as though it is the work of a group of people is also intellectual hackery, and I truly don't have time to explain all of the mores of ethical reporting of the limitations of truth claims, research design, and evidence construction and interpretation to you. Nothing like "false consensus" - your N=1 is still certainly there. Also, it's generous, to say the least, to lend the same weight of credibility to a book produced for mass consumption as one would to a peer-reviewed journal article. The scholarship levels are simply miles apart, as are the veracity of the truth claims. Discussing these limitations is beyond the scope of an article intended to inform people about EAP's, however. Cknoepke (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to Albertoanderson
Hi Alberto,

I saw that you added the "generalizability" caveat to my paragraph. I have removed that sentence because, at an epistemological level, all research (including not only Harlow's, but also Field's) is inherently limited in its generalizability. Harlow's was limited by only being inclusive of one program, while Field's was limited by the scope of the people he worked with (including their inherent biases). It is unbalanced to discount Harlow because he recognizes that limitation, while not also doing the same for Field. You cannot write off an argument simply because you don't agree with it - either add the caveat that Field's work represents the view of one individual, or let the known universal quality of limited generalizability prevail. Cknoepke (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Alberto,

I have added a paragraph to the end of the section referencing a study which looked at employee perceptions of an internal EAP program. I believe this adds a measure of balance to the section as well as some empirical information. Cknoepke (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberto,

I read your notes below. The simple fact of the matter is that you are attempting to state that an individual, rare, or otherwise theoretical occurrence represents the prototypic interaction employees have with their EAP. I don't know if this is the space to attempt to explain the epistemological fallacies you are engaging in, but it suffices to say that non-prototypic examples of an occurrence do not belong in an encyclopedic entry.

I have attempted numerous times to begin a discussion about how to improve the section: honoring the legitimate concerns while not misleading or obviating the experience individuals should expect to have. You have not responded to either of those discussions, seemingly content to focus on the work of a singular, highly controversial source with very limited relationship to the topic being discussed. The onus is officially on you to to describe how you would like to get your concerns across in a way which is factually accurate. What is there is simply not so. 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cknoepke (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the tips, as I said, I am learning the mores of Wiki talk pages. Feel free to respond to the points I brought up in your own time. Cknoepke (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning Cknoepke,


 * Yesterday an Wiki editor updated the banner at the top of the article to include Verifiability.


 * It states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


 * Bully at Work (Nanie) and Bully In Sight (Field) are "published by a reliable source"


 * "Editors" would included anyone that has contributed to the article, such as you so it is irrelevant whether on not you think its untrue.


 * Workplace bullying is a widespread problem. The previous article appeared to side step in-house EAP's and I'm safe to assume they make up a significant percent of all EAP's.  According to Bully At Work in-house EAP are a significant problem for bullied employees.


 * The bizarre thing is that my section is the only content with references.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How again do you plan to improve the section? I have some ideas, many of which I've indicated in earlier discussions, but have not heard your perspective on those ways of improving it yet. Cknoepke (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * After re-reviewing "Bully at Work" and "Bully In Sight" I'm considering adding a point or two to my section.
 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Note #2 to Cknoepke
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)

Note to Cknoepke
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)

SmackBot's Three "Dubious - Discuss" Tags (3 Jan, 2011)
Alberto,

I actually tagged those three statements as "dubious-discuss", SmackBot did me the favor of correcting the formatting of those tags.

I will call attention to the fact that, in none of your quotes is there a clear statement that EAPs routinely compromise the confidentiality of the employees who use their service. In the first and third cases, the EAP simply isn't discussed by your source. In the second, the language suggests that the managers could use EAP to help them manage problem employees or situations. This is typically akin to "supervisor training" and does not involve confidential information from the employee. It's a routine and core function of EAP. Cknoepke (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * On Jan 5 you wrote: "You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider ..... ". How is someone that is an "external" EAP provider have knowledge for in-house EAP's.  It appears you don't have Bully at Work nor Bully In Sight texts which are classic texts in this area.  It appears you don't understand basic trade union structure as you thought a "shop steward" and "employee relations officer" were the same.  How are you in a position to make the above-comment?

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Alberto,

If you would like an example of what actually constitutes an ad-hominem attack, read your above comment. (As you have pointed out to me and others, Wiki frowns on such debate tactics). My credentials as someone who is knowledgeable about EAP are not in question, your sources are. Keep it above the belt.

Cknoepke (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon Cknoepke,


 * I thought you may comeback with that. But I don't think it qualifies as an "attack" because its not "abusive".  Brookfield (and you) assumed I was a disgruntled terminated employee but he never knew whether or not that was true.


 * From Wiki:"Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."


 * Also, ".... but I am an external contracted provider ..... " are your words not mine. You discredited yourself.  I just drew your attention to it.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1st tag
"Unfortunately, sometimes the in-house EAP's are used as a feedback mechanism to assist management with further bullying strategies. In-house EAP counselors are employees of the organization and are, therefore, under management control and may not be neutral. In a unionized workplace EA counselors are usually in management. Furthermore, management generally use Human Resources (HR) and EAP's in collusion to further bully the target."

The references used the support the above are given below sections Bully at Work (Namie) References (1st Edition)and Bully in Sight (Field) References.

I removed the Wiki link from the word "collision" as the subject matter of the collision page pertains to the business world.

2nd tag
"HR representatives may contact the in-house EAP counselor seeking the target's confidential information and even going so far as directing the counselor to ask a specific question(s) to obtain key information that may be useful for further action against the target[dubious – discuss]."

"Confidentially is comprised. Furthermore, on-site counselors' time is subject to exploitation by managers seeking tips for dealing with troublesome employees." (Bully at Work, p.115)

3rd tag
"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)

Cknoepke Response - Professional Ethics tribunals (Licensing Boards)
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)

Professional Ethics tribunals (Licensing Boards)
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)

January 5, 2010 Cknoepke
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)

Bully in Sight (Field) References
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)

Bully at Work (Namie) References (1st Edition)
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)

If in-house (or on-site) EAP's are questionable its not my problem. May be the regulations that govern EAP's need to be tightened up so that in-house EAP's are prohibited for obvious reasons.

It appears you have a copy of the book and this information is easily found by referring to the index.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It appears that you work in the EAP field. Are there any government regulations that govern EAP's or it is a self-regulated entity? I just had a quick look and it appears the later is the case. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd Discussion between Cknoepke/Alberto

 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * Union representatives are mentioned because when bullying turns "critical" management starts the "progressive discipline process" and that triggers the union (and EAP involvement).


 * Workplace bullying revolves around unethical communication including "ratting out" and "collusion".


 * How is an in-house EAP suppose to be "confidential" if staff from HR and EAP are going on coffee break together, etc.. do you actually believe there's absolutely no discussion of the referred employees?


 * Rules only discourage things from happening they don't prevent them from happening all the time. Furthermore, generally professional boards will only consider cases that are Prima facie(i.e. blatantly obvious).

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but none of these explains why you are lumping the actions of union representatives in with EAP providers, as you just acknowledged that they are separate entities. Regardless of whether a mandated referral happens as part of a collective agreement or not, EAP services carry with them the expectation (indeed, the mandate) of confidentiality.

The fact that people will find this article after a simple online search is precisely why we must be careful and accurate in reporting the standard of practice of EAP. Telling people that they are going to be ratted out to their boss because they talk to the EAP, or that management is going to guide the questions the EAP counselor will ask, when neither of which are true, could feasibly lead to a situation where an employee unnecessarily escalates an already precarious situation. Confidentiality is, quite literally, the glue that makes all behavioral health services work. This is why the state boards, professional organizations, and individual agencies hold it up as a prime ethical tenet (and why I've harped on it so much). Your submission only serves to undermine that effort, and in a factually inaccurate manner.

If someone is making the effort to research their EAP, they are likely in a situation where their life could be improved. It's categorically irresponsible and unconscionable to give them patently false information which guides them away from what might be the only opportunity for them to get professional help. Cknoepke (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * My reasoning for putting that info in the EAP article rather than the Workplace Bullying article is when a bullied employee is faced with wrongful discipline/dismissal the EAP is "suggested" to them, consequently if they want to find out what "EAP' is all about they will most likely "Google" or "Wiki" it. The "workplace bullying" terminology isn't widely known and (at less the last time I looked) the only North America laws are in Quebec (Canada) where they have a new "psychological harassment" laws under their labor code.


 * "Shop stewards" and "union relations officers" are different. Depending on the union they may be called "employee relations officers". Union relations officers are usually non-lawyers trained in arbitration (usually former shop stewards that have worked their way up).  They are full-time paid positions and employed by the union.  Also, once a grievance is filed via a shop steward it is reviewed by a union relations officers who then acts on the griever's behalf to resolve the issue.  If it can't be resolved and the union thinks the grievance has merit it then goes to arbitration.


 * Collective agreements usually have language that suggest employees with "performance problems" enter into an EAP. Some large private or public entities have in-house EAP's.


 * Again, I'm referring to in-house EAP's. Previously, I had referenced it 4 times in the 1st paragraph, but then on your concern I expanded the section title and added a 5th reference in the 1st paragraph to make it even more clear.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Alberto,

I would like that Field information out of a matter of intellectual curiosity. Thank you for providing that.

Perhaps the greater issue is that you seem to be conflating EAPs with shop stewards and ad hoc "tribunals". Shop stewards, as I'm sure you are aware, are union representatives - the only involvement they have in managing problems with employees are during grievance procedures, where there is very limited perception or expectation of confidentiality. Similarly, "tribunals", as you describe them, are a discipline proceeding where the subject matter is the behavior of an employee and there is no expectation of confidentiality (of course these types of proceedings are rife with the possibility of workplace bullying, but that discussion does not belong within an article discussing EAPs).

EAPs, even in-house ones, are different at both a conceptual and practical level. The clients (employees) typically refer themselves and the subject matter discussed are personal/relationship problems, work-life balance issues, life stage adjustments, etc. and there is absolutely an expectation of confidentiality. This expectation holds true whether the provider is a non-professional in-house provider, a contracted behavioral health professional, or any other type.

Perhaps this clears up some role or name confusion. Cknoepke (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cknoepke


 * The Field test doesn't go into EAP's but it does describe the tribunal situation that can be "bizarre" plus all the other bullying behavior, etc..


 * I have the first edition of Namie that does talk about EAP, shop stewards, etc.. I don't have this book with me at the moment, but I'll get back to you with the page references.


 * I put the references at the end of section for convenience rather than having the same reference on every other sentence.

Later Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The Namie link isn't "broken". The content of the text isn't available online. I guess they did that so people would have to buy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoarmstrong (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alberto,

Thank you for clarifying the first line of that section - it seems more clear that you are referencing onsite, nonprofessional EAP's now.

I have had a chance to look over your references and, regrettably, have not found any information which supports the claims you have made about the communication/informational feedback loops and breaches of confidentiality in your section of the article. Tim Field's work describes patterns of interpersonal behavior workplace bullies engage in (such as singling out, triangulating, giving unclear or undesirable work assignments, etc.), but makes no mention of EAPs as a tool of institutional control.

Similarly, Namie's work describes prevalence and effects of workplace bullying generally, and one article includes a very brief section outlining concerns employees may have about confidentiality of their discussions with EAP providers. It does not, however, state that these concerns are warranted and certainly doesn't, as you have claimed, indicated that they factually represent the standard of practice among EAPs. (You should also know that the link you providided in the Namie reference was broken, making it extremely difficult to determine what he actually wrote). Incidentally speaking, the concerns or worries about confidentiality Namie identifies echo those among consumers of all behavioral healthcare - concerns which are taken very seriously by the professionals involved and specifically addressed by conscientious practitioners.

This indicates, as I stated before, that these references are grossly and massively misattributed. The stories and claims they are meant to support are simply not logically related to their actual content. Please remove or amend these references (including finding a working link for Namie, as I'm sure his work should be referenced within Wiki's "workplace bullying" article).

Cknoepke (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberto

Your first line "worpkplace bullying targets should be leery of EAPs" does not reference nor make clear that you are advising people to be wary of only on-site, nonprofessional EAPs. Barring any other changes, I'm asking that you clarify that.

Re state licensing boards: members of the helping professions who typically work for external/contracted EAPs, (clinical social workers, psychologists, marriage & family therapists, etc) are licensed and credentialed by state licensing boards in the US. These are the same boards who regulate the practice of physicians, nurses, dentists, realtors, chiropractors, and others. If a professional in any of these disciplines flagrantly broke confidentiality in the manner your section implies they routinely do, they would be issued reprimands and punishments up to and including revocation of their license to practice. Therefore, confidentiality is not inappropriately broken frequently among external EAPs (which, again, you have failed to clarify whether or not you believe employees should be leery of). What you say happens simply doesn't with the frequency with which you believe it does - if "Bully at Work" is the report of one individual, I ask you to consider the size of the N from which you are making grand pronouncements.

You are also correct in not advising people, through Wikipedia, to forsake professional services to help them if they are struggling with alcohol use and instead go to AA. Giving such advise without individual knowledge of the person and their circumstances, even if you are an expert in the field, is irresponsible.

Again, I will grant you that the article would benefit from more citations and a balanced perspective throughout. What I disagree with is the manner in which you have expanded what is clearly an individual or otherwise infrequent occurrence and stated that it is the standard of practice in this service sector, especially without sufficient caveat given to the fact that those types of boundary violations aren't logistically possible in most EAP practices.

I do apologize if you felt victimized in any way by my agreement with the other commenter. I meant to agree with the sentiment that that section of the article is inaccurate and inappropriate to the venue.

Cknoepke (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Albertoarmstrong
The fact that you were identifying only in-house EAP providers was not clear - please clarify. If a professional social worker, psychologist, or counselor employed by an (external/contracted) EAP were to engage in the practices you describe, they would be harshly punished by their state licensing board, and rightly so. As such, the the prevalence of situations like the one you describe (where confidentiality is routinely breached in order to give bosses ammunition against their employees) is infinitesimally small.

One way of accomplishing this clarification, which speaks to greater changes within the article, would be to identify the different types of EAPs and maybe their relative strengths and weaknesses. For instance, in-house ones create the types of concerns you outline (the EAP becoming a proxy setting for battles between management and employees), while EAPs provided by contracted third-party organizations - which are far more common - do not carry these concerns to nearly the same degree. Additionally, some of these third-party EAP organizations exist simply as 1-800 numbers that rarely lead to in-person interactions with professional providers. More common are the "affiliate network" type of EAPs, in which employees wishing to speak to someone call the third-party organization managing the program and are offered referrals for brief, free treatment by private practice social workers, psychologists, and others in their community - a model with its own pros and cons. There are many such examples of strengths and weaknesses, but the article might benefit from someone succinctly enumerating the types of EAPs that exist and what are good and bad about each type.

Re your references - simply having a footnoted reference does not, again, make demonstrably false pronouncements correct. Your first reference is a perfect example of this: the article you cite, which was copied from a submission appearing in the Journal of Employee Assistance, included a short section describing concerns employees may have about using EAPs, but made no mention of the prevalence of these concerns actually coming true (probably because, as I stated above, these concerns are unfounded in the vast majority of situations). Using this article to backup a statement that implies employees are "usually" targeted by their bosses who use the EAP to wield power over them represents a gross misattribution. Please remove the citation or amend accordingly.

Finally, nothing about any of my criticisms of your sections are "ad hominem" - they are simply critiques of what I find to be a tremendously misleading, incomplete, and factually inaccurate representation of the topic. Granted, the rest of the article could use some citations, but that does not give you permission to contribute in the manner in which you have. Cknoepke (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * The first paragraph of my section I referenced "in-house EAP's" 4 times, so its very clear that I'm addressing "in-house EAP" abuse.


 * I'm not so sure about your point about "licensing board" as the Bully at Work is written by a US authors who counseled (over 3000 as I recall) bullied employee in California so it doesn't seem to be a deterrent. Also, the problem is that some EAP staff are gullible and they give management information thinking they're helping the target.


 * In your Dec 30 post you wrote: "....but I must agree with the previous commenter's (Brookfield)concerns about the Workplace Bullying section." And Brookfield wrote: " ...and appears to be a simple rant from a disgruntled and probably terminated employee scapegoating EAP for his situation." Therefore, "ad hominem".


 * I could have edited other peoples' work. For example, I could have mentioned that instead of using EAP for substance abuse employees should go to AA.  But I didn't.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Cknoepke
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)

Apologies for any formatting problems in my contribution to the talk here, but I must agree with the previous commenter's concerns about the Workplace Bullying section. It does sound as if the author of that section encountered an unfortunate circumstance and wishes to use Wiki as an outlet for his/her frustrations. Luckily, such situations do not represent the plurality of encounters employees have with their EAP or other behavioral health/work-life providers, as the situations described violate both ethical principles of the professionals employed as EAP providers and Federal privacy laws. Using "often", "typically", and "usually" to qualify demonstrably false claims does not ensure against partiality and outright bias.

What's truly unfortunate about this author's contribution is that it dramatically and falsely overstates the prevalence of fears which might prevent employees from using what can be a very helpful and cost-effective service to improve their lives. The contribution takes legitimate concerns employees might initially have about privacy and feeds them with false claims about the legally and ethically mandated boundaries on the relationship between the EAP provider and the employer.

Please amend or remove said section. Cknoepke (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Brookfield

 * 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)

As I stated when I attempted to delete the section bullying in the workplace, that entire section is far from neutral, has no credible supporting citations and appears to be a simple rant from a disgruntled and probably terminated employee scapegoating EAP for his situation. Unfortunately, the author undid my deletion and has continued with his rant. Brookfield53045 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous Discussions
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)

Considering the guidelines of what Wikipedia should be I am unsure if this link belongs here. If a reference to Compsych is placed here then so will links to other "notable" EAP companies, meaning that this entry could degrade into a directory which is Wikipedia is not (from What Wikipedia is not/when you wonder what to do: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.)  This entry is meant to direct people to information on what EAP's are and do, not a list of companies that provide EAP services. That perhaps would be more appropriate if you created an article entitled EAP Companies, but even that list would have to conform to guidelines of notablity. So, let us talk about this. G0dsweed 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are really only a few major EAP companies in the USA/World. Some other companies also provide similar services, but not on the same scale. I really can't see how adding 5 company names would degrade the quality of the article. Timwhit 00:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest then, that we start an article for Notable EAP companies, with a longer list than just Compsych and create a link under the EAP article to the previously mentioned article? Or perhaps (and I think I like this idea better) we should just casually mention Compsych (and another "notable" EAP company if we can find one) as examples of EAP companies? Sort of like this article on oil companies([]). How does that sound? G0dsweed 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Integrating a few of the larger EAP companies is probably the best solution rather than creating what will be a rather short article. Another good example of this can be seen on the Management Consulting article. Especially since the EAP business only has a few big players, similar to management consulting. Some other notable EAP's are: Magellan Health Services, CIGNA Behavioral Health, and Ceridian. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it is a good enough start, and hopefully others can add more later. If it gets to the point that the article is giant list of companies, then a separate article can be created. Timwhit 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)