Talk:Employee assistance program/Bullying

Workplace bullying concerns
In-house EAP counselors are employees of the organization and are, therefore, under management control and may not be neutral. Contracted EAPs are paid by management so their neutrality is questionable as well. In a unionized workplace EA counselors are usually in management. Furthermore, management generally use Human Resources (HR) and EAPs in an unwitting collusion to further bully the target. 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. Generally, the objective of the bully is to make the target resign and this is referred to as constructive dismissal. EAPs are not designed to help the target and are sometimes manipulated by both the union and management to the detriment of the target.

Sometimes a target will contact the EAP complaining about workplace bullying and an EAP counselor may come to the workplace and give a generic respectful workplace group presentation. However, this presentation, as reflected in typical promotional material, will imply that bullying is co-worker(s) on co-worker that occurs only because management is unaware of the situation, rather than as the manager as the bully and research indicates that 70% to 81% of bullies are bosses. Typically, managers in attendance will announce they have an "open door policy" and staff can come to them at any time with any concerns. But, bully managers often encourage their staff to join in and many do either willing or unwittingly. Also, the counselor may highlight human rights laws, but workplace bullying is generally outside human rights laws particularly if manager and the target are of the same race and sex, or if the manager belongs to a minority group but the target doesn't. Typically, these presentations skirt the specific problem the target is experiencing.

Many managers view EAP enrollment as demeaning to the employee or a means to “straighten out” the target. 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.

Typically, when the bullying turns critical, management with the help of HR will fabricate frivolous work performance allegations against the target and apply a progressive discipline policy (i.e. reprimand, suspension and dismissal). In an unionized workplace the collective agreement usually suggests that under-performing employees voluntarily enter an EAP program. EAP's are based on the premise that the unsatisfactory work performance is due to non-workplace factors such as substance abuse, financial problems, family and/or relationship conflicts, physical or emotional illness, however, these are unrelated to or the cause of workplace bullying, so the EAP is unlikely to help the target. Usually, union relations officers encourage the target to enter EAPs in anticipation of a possible suspension or dismissal as the EAP involvement may be used as a component of the legal defense strategy to make it appear to an arbitration tribunal that the target was making a serious effort to correct their alleged performance problems. 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". Generally, the employer will use as many fabricated false allegations and witnesses as possible, but this usually results in management's own extensive and glaring evidence and testimony inconsistencies that can be bizarre. Also, prior to the tribunal some of management's potential witnesses may panic and try to avoid being called as a witness by discrediting themselves. 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.

Employees' acceptance
The concerns that employees may have about internal EAPs, however, have been shown to wane after using the program. In Harlow's large sample of employees with access to an internal EAP, having utilized the program predicted employees' increased favorable ratings of the EAP as a benefit, including the perceived ease of access, decreased sense of a negative effect on their career from using the service, increased perception of the maintenance of confidentiality, and increased sense of overall effectiveness. Harlow posited that the small proportion of employees who typically utilize an internal EAP contributes to the promulgation of negative perceptions of such programs, and that these perceptions decrease dramatically when employees actually use the service. However, the conclusion of this study stated: "Because the results of the study were specific to one EAP organization, any generalizations of the findings must be made with caution."