Talk:Employee assistance program/Archives/2012

"101 Sample Writeups" failed verification
I have added the failed verification tag to this citation as the source does not support the accompanying statement ( "If the target is unwilling to enter a EAP, then management may use this at an arbitration tribunal to make it appear that the target has a 'bad attitude'"). The distance between what this article indicates and what's actually in the source include: 1)The source references external EAPs, not the internal ones which are the subject of this section. 2)The source discourages managers from making mandatory referrals to the EAP, which countervails the substance of this argument. 3)The source states that arbitrators, not managers, may view not utilizing an EAP as evidence of failing to make a good faith effort on the part of the employee. This would occur after the employee has been terminated and would be completed by a third party and therefore not the bully within the organization.

Cknoepke (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Page 42 of the EAP section (pg 40 to 42) states:


 * "If and when a judge evaluates the employee’s wrongful discharge claim, she’ll clearly see the merit in your efforts and the unreasonableness of an obstinate employee who refused to get help for himself." (pg 42)


 * "Bad attitude" equals "unreasonableness of an obstinate employee" So, its there but you never looked.  The next time please use the index - its not that hard.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberto,

I seriously laughed when I saw that you called verification "frivolous". Maybe that's your problem.

If it's not verifiable, then it doesn't belong here. It doesn't matter how strongly you hold the opinion that employees who are fired and don't make use of their EAP are marked with the scarlet letter of having a "bad attitude": if there is no credible source that says it, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

In any scenario, the "judge" who is doing the "evaluating" is the issue here. If it's an arbitrator, then it's third party and therefore not the workplace bully or the EAP. If the arbitrator isn't third party, then that's a problem with the arbitration process... another issue which isn't relevant to... and therefore shouldn't be in an article discussing.... EAPs.

Read beyond the index, it too isn't that hard. Cknoepke (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * The section is about EAP in general. The "Bully at Work (2006)" mentioned in-house EAP, but the most recent version talks about all EAPs, and so does the "What Every Target of Workplace Bullying Needs to Know".  It appears you picked up on this and edited the section to read "in-house" EAPs to cover up your above erroneous "argument" that my reference concerning "bad attitude" is irrelevant because it refers to all EAPs rather than "in-house" EAPs.  But your argument doesn't even make sense it goes with saying that a arbitrator would look favorably upon EAP participation whether it was in-house or contracted.


 * Anyway, I'm glad you've involved on this discussion page as it is another indicator of how a target may be treated by EAP.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Albert,

Attempting to frame yourself as a victim doesn't do your arguments any favors. It's santimonious and an unproductive use of both of our time and effort.

The overarching problem here is that you've added citations to this section ad hoc. We both know that you're the sole author of this section, and that the section hasn't appreciably changed since you got knocked by myself and other editors for not having enough citations to support what is clearly a controversial opinion.

The problem there, Albert, is that you took what you'd already written (your own opinion) and went out and found citations that might vaguely...kinda...sorta...almost... support your statements. I read the sources and find that they don't match what you've written, point it out to you, and you take offense to being called out for intellectual dishonesty.

To make it clear: the order you did it was - write the article, find references to (almost) support the article. Exactly backwards.

Cknoepke (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good evening Cknoepke,


 * Not so. Initially, I wrote the section based on "Bully at Work" and "Bully Insight" (and cited those refs) plus common knowledge info such as union structure, collective agreement language, etc..  Remember you didn't understand the difference between a "shop steward" and the "union relations officer". You (and Brookfield in the beginning) made such a fuss over every word I kept looking for references for the common knowledge portions to make it stronger and make you happy.


 * The irony with your protests is that the rest of the article is unreferenced.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good evening to you as well,

The onus is on you to cite everything you say in an accurate, direct, un-convoluted way - it's the nature of making pronouncements that are counter to popular opinion and prevailing knowledge. The lack of references in the rest of the article, as I've said before, does not excuse you from properly referencing your argument. If you're as confident in your statements as you claim to be, you shouldn't have a problem holding yourself to a higher standard.

You have yet to cite anything that is both specifically intended to address EAPs and isn't synthesized or self-published, and I doubt you will find anything scholarly (i.e. that is peer reviewed and analyzes original data) that comes to the same conclusions you do. No sooner did I present results from an independent journal article than you claimed they were irrelevant.

Seemingly every time I (or Brookfield before me) points out that you are writing in a biased, unbalanced fashion, you point out that the rest of the article is unbalanced - as if that means you should balance it out with slanted and unverifiable information in the negative. You could choose to improve the rest of the article, but that's apparently not your goal: your goal is to discredit EAPs. Whatever happened to you to make it so you felt the need to do so must have been frustrating and/or traumatic, but it doesn't give you permission to mislead people who might really need help - and who might misunderstand your protests and not access a service which could play a central role in saving their health, their families, their jobs, or their lives. You don't seem to understand the gravity of issues people face in the offices of mental health professionals.

The irony with your protests is that they would only make sense if this were a platform for opinion writing... not an encyclopedia. I ask that you carefully examine, within your own mind, your purpose for continuing to fight with me and other editors. Are you truly trying to improve the content of an article and make it more accurate and appropriate to this venue, or are you expressing your own frustrations against an individual or entity through Wikipedia? In either case, this should become an entirely different discussion.

Cknoepke (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon Cknoepke,


 * Other than the "Workplace Bully & EAP Concerns" section (that I started), the rest of the article is promotional material. Even your insertion into the "Workplace Bully & EAP Concerns" section is promotional.  I can't imagine the "Journal of Employment Counseling" (aka EAP) publishing anything negative about itself.  Then, you "synthesized" the article by conveniently failing to mention the main point of the conclusion:  "Because the results of the study were specific to one EAP organization, any generalizations of the findings must be made with caution." (that I had to insert for clarification).


 * Also, I used about 4 independent references per paragraph; whereas the rest of the article has about 0.06 refs per paragraph (1/16); and that single reference is questionable.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So everything you write is hard-and-fast truth, and everything that disagrees with you is promotional and part of a grand pro-EAP conspiracy (even if it's in a peer-reviewed journal). Got it.

What's your goal here again?

Cknoepke (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cknoepke,


 * I see you placed another frivolous "not in citation given" tag in the "Workplace Bully & EAP Concerns" section. But once again you are wrong as page 128 states: "70% comes from managers/supervisors".


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's awfully convenient that at least three of your references cite information that isn't available in the previews you've provided. That's a lot of information that can't be verified.

Still no response about what your purpose here is, though.... Cknoepke (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning Cknoepke,


 * My purpose (as I stated before) is: 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) 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, And what does "learn more about EAP" mean in your mind? From what I can tell, you would only be satisfied if the beginning, middle, and end of their learning came from one source. You believe "Bully at Work" to be the only valuable resource, eschewing even journal articles (which it's clear you are completely oblivious to when it comes to how they're edited/constructed). Cknoepke (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon,


 * Actually, "Bully at Work" and "What Every Target of Workplace Bullying Needs to Know" both are critical of EAP. I own both.  One has to be careful of journal articles as researchers/prof's are under pressure to publish routinely so they tend re-hash the same material.  Also, its easy to design a study to get the result one wants.  You seem to keep overlooking that the journal article is based on a single organization.  Also, sometimes employees get disenchanted with HR (and EAP is really HR), so they don't bother using it and/or filling questionnaires and this skews the findings.  So, its failure is its success.   To imply a journal article is better than a book is groundless.


 * Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your rationalizations all sound very good in your own mind, I'm sure. You have to assume a lot happens (people lie to HR more than they tell te truth - even though most employees never have problems with them, HR is the same as EAP, professors lie to get published but non-academic book authors don't - even though book deals are big business, etc) in order for these rationalizations to stick. That doesn't matter to you, though, because they all somehow fit the narrative you've developed, other information be damned.

Please respect my time, as well as the time and effort of other editors and readers, by only responding once you have gained sufficient insight, flexibility, and perspective to meaningfully contribute to the improvement of this article. Cknoepke (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like to request the lead section only be reverted to the lead section of this version. The current lead text was added by an SPA that sought to rewrite the criticism section with a promotional spin The lead section in the version requested is at least more NPOV. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me Cknoepke (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Employee assistance programs → Employee assistance program — Per WP:SINGULAR. I'm listing this here and not as an "uncontroversial request" at WP:RM only because the page is fully protected and I want to make sure the parties involved in the dispute are aware of this request. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment So the question is whether there are classes of things that are EAPs, or is there just one thing. The article is not clear on this.  It is clear that not all EAPs are the same, but it attempts no classification. Given the scope of EAPs and the large literature, I would expect that they are actually a class of objects.  Regardless of my opinion, before renaming I would suggest that an answer to this question is necessary. See WP:SINGULAR guideline. --Bejnar (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The old article only alluded to the fact that there are very disparate and different models of programs that call themselves EAPs. It might be useful to gather descriptions of these various models so that someone who is looking up "EAP" with a Google or Wikipedia search can determine which model is relevant to their own situation (because their employer uses one, etc.). Cknoepke (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Definitely falls under WP:SINGULAR. –CWenger (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - seems like the article has other issues if it is fully protected. So I would want this level of protection removed before tinkering more. Also the idea that one employer can offer several programs that each focus on unique areas would lead me to the idea that the plural might be often used as a singular. "Go see the Employee Assistance Programs officer about that." -- Avanu (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request 28 March 2011
I propose the following changes to the "Employers" section: Please note that I am not done assessing this article's POV, and will most likely be making additional requests. This was simply the easiest area to assess. I'm seeking consensus before placing the template, as this may be controversial and the template explicitly states that it should only be used if the request is uncontroversial or has consensus. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove the second through seventh paragraphs in their entirety as unreferenced promotion and possible OR.
 * In the eighth paragraph ("In business it is customary..."), retain the sentence "The provision of employee assistance..." as it appears to be reliably sourced, and delete the rest of the paragraph as unreferenced promotion.
 * Remove the ninth paragraph ("Two potential measures...") in its entirety as POV/OR. The one source given is behind a paywall and I have no access to it. Retain a link to that source on this talk page for future reference, in case someone uninvolved in this dispute can access the content or can find a free-access version.


 * Hi, Fine by me.Albertoarmstrong (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is that reference: Evaluating Employee Assistance Programs, Masi It came directly after the statement "Utilization rates are the percent of employees who make use of the EAP's services in a given year and suggested annual utilization targets range from 5-8%". Again, this is behind a paywall. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 28 March 2011 #2
Please place the tag on top of this article. I am actively working the issue so this is not a drive-by tagging per se, but at the same time a casual reader coming across this article while the issue is being worked needs to know that this article has POV issues. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 28 March 2011 #3
Again, I'm seeking consensus before applying the template as this may be controversial. I propose deleting the entire "Associations" section as promotional and redundant with the "External links" section. The EL section should read as follows, or something similar:

Professional associations in the employee assistance program industry: &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Employee Assistance Professionals Association – worldwide association
 * Employee Assistance European Forum – 23 European nations
 * Employee Assistance Society of North America – United States and Canada
 * Hi, Fine by me. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV rewrite in progress
I am in the process of doing a major rewrite on this article to make it compliant with NPOV. Please note that because of the way the article is structured, I will tackle the heaping praise first before tackling the heaping criticism. The only reason for this is that the criticism section is better referenced and it will take me more time to wade through the sources in that section. It should not be construed as my agreement with either side. As mentioned above, all editors, myself included, are subject to 1RR on this article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning, I was wondering if you could split the "Workplace Bulling Concerns" section into two sections.  The 5th paragraph that was inserted by Chenopke (in an attempt to counter my references) and reads "The concerns that employees ....... findings must be made with caution.""  This new section could be titled "Employees' Perception".  The reference doesn't relate strictly to Workplace Bullying.   Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, in the 4th paragraph of the "Workplace Bullying Concerns" could the last sentences be changed to read: "Management's potential witnesses are often motivated by envy toward the target, trying to use or sabotage the target to further their own careers, or are unwitting bully participants coupled with Groupthink.[3][9][15]" Groupthink is discussed in the Namie reference listed as [3]. Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert that change for now, but frankly, I have a feeling that when I'm done most of your content will be gone. This article is about employee assistance programs, not workplace bullying. There is a separate article on that subject, and by definition the content you added is coatracking. That's not to say that the issues raised are not valid ones; the problem is you have given undue weight to the issue on an article that should define what an EAP is.
 * Right now the idea I have is to shorten this section but broaden its scope to essentially say that in-house EAPs have been criticized as being ineffective and just another arm of management. Workplace bullying is just one element of that larger issue. I need to wade through the sources first to see what statements are and are not verified, and of those that are verified, which make sense to retain. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Was there a consensus as to whether to split out the "Employee Perceptions" paragraph or not? Cknoepke (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say there was no consensus; I merely left it alone because I think most of it is going to be gone by the time I'm done. However, in the interim, if this paragraph merits its own section, it should be as a sub-section of the "bullying" section, not as a stand-alone top-level section. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot to address Alberto's other concern. I have no immediate objection to the "groupthink" addition other than to reiterate my previous comments about drastically trimming down this section. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only criticism I would have about the groupthink piece is that it stretches the discussion further into the dynamics of workplace bullying, not a definition of EAPs. Even though the statement is supported by the reference and almost certainly reflective of one of many interpersonal/political dynamics which occur in unhealthy workplaces, it's still not about EAPs. Without it, the article far better maintains fidelity to the subject. Cknoepke (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

References removed from article
I removed the following references from the article and am copying them here only because they may turn out useful:
 * What Every Target of Workplace Bullying Needs to Know by Anton Hout, 2010 – The link is to a sales site. Without access to the book, I will reluctantly assume that it does verify the content, and will re-add a reference to this book when I have a chance to properly format it.
 * N.J. jury awards $1.8 million to fired worker, Aug 11, 2009 and Depressed worker wins $1.8 million over firing from gas company, Aug 5, 2009 – These are two separate reports on one person's case. These references were apparently used in the article to cite broad generalizations about several things. That's quite a leap and easily crosses the original research line. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I used those 2 lawsuit references to further support how EAP colludes with management and breaks confidentially as discussed in "Bully At Work" and "What Every Target of Workplace Bullying Needs to Know" (but these texts aren't available online).


 * From 1st ref: "Saputelli said Jones signed a waiver to allow his supervisors to discuss the evaluation and make an appropriate plan for accommodating him, but that they never contacted the counselor to do so. Jasinski said the document simply showed Jones had attended counseling, but did not waive privacy restrictions on discussions with the counselor."


 * From 2nd ref: "But company documents and testimony from company officials told a different story, Saputelli said. "During discovery we got documents where [supervisors] spoke of [Jones's] medical condition with each other, and that he had complained about his inability to concentrate and focus," he said."


 * I used these refs with the 2 texts refs to make it stronger. It had nothing to do with "cite broad generalizations about several things".  It was one specific thing.


 * Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Entire "bullying" section moved to working page
I have moved the entire "bullying" section to a working page: Talk:Employee assistance programs/Bullying. I have replaced its place in the article with a more concise, broad "criticism" section. I'm keeping the working page around for now because I think there is some content there, particularly references, worth salvaging, but in its entirety it doesn't belong on this article. Maybe some of it would be suited for the workplace bullying article. Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, If an bullied employee gets dragged into a bogus work performance meeting and offered EAP and they want to learn more they going to Google or Wiki "EAP" and not "Workplace Bullying", so this article is the best place. Its all about direct communication.  Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)