Letters: Help is available for workers to overcome substance abuse

Although it is not something many people realize, drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace is quite prevalent. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence reports 70 percent of the 14.8 million Americans who abuse drugs are employed. Additionally, 24 percent of workers admit drinking during the day at least once in the past year.

Given the high percentage of employees struggling with drug or alcohol related issues, employers should have a stake in ensuring employees have access to treatment options. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrative replacing an employee costs 25 percent to almost 200 percent of annual compensation – excluding loss of institutional knowledge, productivity, absenteeism and company morale. Ultimately, treatment for employees, with the goal of life-long recovery, should be a top priority for Hoosier businesses.

As open enrollment closes for the year – and many employers have changed insurance companies and coverage plans – it’s important to understand what options are available to employees in terms of drug and alcohol treatment plans. Businesses need to reach out to those of us in the substance-use disorder field to learn how to help employers navigate the various health insurance programs and to serve as advocates for employees who struggle with addiction. As a partner with employers, treatment centers are focused on helping employers get their employees back with the goal of a healthier and more productive workplace.

Employers can proactively and successfully help employees with substance abuse problems get the help they need by keeping these simple steps in mind:

1. Treat the problem as an employee/HR support issue rather than a strict disciplinary issue and reduce any negative stigma of addiction in the workplace.

2. Educate employees of their benefits, company wellness programs and employee assistance programs (EAPs) that can help with substance-use treatment.

3. Offer support and refer employees to appropriate treatment facilities and programs.

4. Provide employees with a comprehensive health plan that supports a broad range of services and support.

5. Demand more from your health insurance company and serve as an advocate for your employees by demanding benefits that include mental health and addiction treatment services.

We cannot ignore the fact that Indiana’s drug crisis impacts Hoosier businesses – and that Hoosier businesses can be a part of the solution to Indiana’s addiction issues. Employees who exit the workforce due to untreated, or undertreated, addictions do have options to get help. Together we can educate and empower Hoosier employees to get the support and access to treatment needed so they can continue to work, thrive and survive – for themselves, their families and for our economy. There is hope. Recovery is possible.

Barbara B. Elliott

President and CEO, Fairbanks

Tolls would hurt state's economy

The Indiana General Assembly and Gov. Eric Holcomb have made clear their intention to build tolls across Indiana to try and solve our mounting transportation infrastructure needs. As longtime Indiana residents and the people who manage the stores, restaurants and truck service operations for all 15 TA/Petro travel plazas in Indiana, we are concerned that our elected officials fail to see how tolls will hurt hundreds of businesses’ ability to compete while simultaneously pushing up prices for Hoosier drivers.

Ultimately, tolls create winners and losers, and it is Indiana businesses that will suffer, not the out-of-state trucks the state believes it is targeting. Rather than pay these new fees, customers will simply drive around tolls and take their money elsewhere.

Studies have shown that when new tolls go up, drivers seek alternative routes to avoid toll roads. Smartphone navigation Apps like Google Maps and Waze even direct drivers around tolls. We rely on steady traffic and consistent costs to plan, grow and hire. These changing traffic patterns will harm existing businesses and throw any future planning into chaos. Uncertainty is terrible for a business. How can any business along I-70, I-65 or I-94 plan for expansion, renovations or changes without the expectation of a consistent flow of traffic?

The harmful economic impacts of tolls should be brought to light as the state assesses their potential use. Unfortunately, these negative impacts were not included in a recent study released by the Indiana Department of Transportation, which may mislead state policymakers into thinking tolls are the magic moneymaker they’ve been waiting for.

We would urge the Indiana General Assembly and Governor Holcomb to listen to the concerns of the business community. Across the U.S., when states have tried to build tolls, the business community has always stood up and said “No.” So has the public. One need to only look at Virginia and North Carolina. Both sought to toll I-95 a few years ago under the same federal pilot program that Indiana is now eyeing. Both of those efforts failed due to immense public opposition. Indiana’s leaders can learn these lessons without spending millions of taxpayer dollars on tolling studies.

Business impacts aside, new tolls across Indiana will also hurt customers. If tolls are built, truck drivers will have to pay new toll taxes to get their goods to truckstops, retail stores and grocery stores. Basic economics tells us that the customer will be the one facing higher prices. This will hurt hardworking Hoosier families, who will have less money to spend.

Gov. Holcomb and the General Assembly care about Indiana’s economy. Therefore, as they learn the negative impacts tolls will have, they should abandon their plan to toll our state border to border. Combined, we have managed and operated travel plazas across Indiana for over 80 years. We know what it takes to run a successful business, hire new employees and build customer loyalty. New tolls will jeopardize that success. We ask Indiana’s elected leaders to listen to the business community as they think about our state’s transportation future, and to find solutions that do not reroute business and prosperity around Indiana.

Karen Mathews

District Manager of Restaurants, TA / Petro Stopping Centers, Indiana

Rick Potts

District Manager of Truck Service, TA / Petro Stopping Centers, Indiana

Kris Roach

Director of Stores, TA / Petro Stopping Centers, Indiana

ISTEP encroaches on final exams

I teach in a high school. For most of the past two plus weeks many of the students in Indiana have been retaking the ISTEP test. The Department of Education released the spring results on Sept. 6, but decided to retest these students now. Why does the timing matter? Because the majority of high schools in the state are either giving final exams or preparing to give final exams. The students are removed from class to take the ISTEP, missing all of the review sessions, and then they come back just in time to take the final exam. It's almost like the folks at the state level making these decisions have never been in a school in their lives.

Patrick Tankersley

Indianapolis

Brooks wrong about Net Neutrality

On Dec. 13, Rep. Susan Brooks joined a group of congressional colleagues in sending a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging them to rush ahead with its controversy-ridden vote on net neutrality. The following day, the FCC voted to eliminate net neutrality, the legal principle that all Internet service providers should treat Internet data as the same regardless of its kind, source, or destination, without charging more for or blocking specific services. In countries like Spain and Portugal, who have similarly repealed these protections, that’s exactly what happens. Consumers like you and I pay more for less.

Brooks has claimed the public is just “confused” on the issue. While I am no technical expert, it’s clear enough to me that this was a valued public protection that had keep near-Monopolies like Comcast in check since it was first codified under the Bush Administration. 

Since being elected to office, Brooks has received over $168,000 from Internet Service Providers, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s not a campaign contribution. That’s what I call a salary. Last week, she made it clear enough who works for whom. 

Our politicians should work for America, not Comcast, not Verizon, not Big Business.

Sean Dugdale

Indianapolis

State should offer free community college

In the stories about the new session of the state legislature there was the usual statements by leaders, individual legislators, and the governor about the need for workforce development. Yet outside of one Democratic state senator not one real and specific solution has been put forth. That solution, universal Pre-K education, should be a top priority, along with universal all-day kindergarten (both with voluntary op-out for parents),and free community college.

Is this some wild-eyed notion? Most states already have mandatory universal all day kindergarten. More and more states are moving toward universal Pre-K and free community college. Tennessee, not exactly a liberal hotbed, has had free community college for several years now. New York has now passed free college, not just community college, as has Rhode Island, the smallest state. Of course we know several of the European countries already have free college: France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and others. 

These education measures will not only produce a more attractive workforce for current business but crucial in attracting more high wage enterprises as well as growing local entrepreneurs. Beyond the benefits to direct business spurring greater educational opportunities will bring dividends to taxpayers in less money needed for prisons, jails, welfare, crime, etc. Hoosiers are a hard working and caring people who do a lot on a private basis but they deserve better from their state and federal officials. Sadly the Republican legislative super majority and governor seem content to let our state be last, next to last, or in the bottom rankings in many areas. 

Mike Boland

Fishers

Don't use Scripture to make decisions about Jerusalem

This concerns Gary Varvel’s Dec. 14 column about Jerusalem that started with a scriptural reference from 2 Chronicles. I get the importance of religious beliefs on how U.S. citizens view foreign and domestic policy. I get how those beliefs might influence how citizens vote or the positions they encourage their elected officials to take. I get that religion and religious beliefs, history and culture are huge, primary political factors in Israel and the Middle East. What I don’t get is Varvel’s seeming assertion that U.S. foreign policy should be based on ancient Hebrew texts and the LifeWay research study asserting “69 percent of Christians say Israel has a historic right to this land.” That stuns me. Not the opinions expressed. They are expected and evangelicals have the right and, in their view, the responsibility to share them. I’m just wondering, where, in Varvel’s column is the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Jerusalem is held sacred by three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which have scriptural, historical and cultural claims on the city. Within each of these three faiths, reside a myriad of sects and denominations each having their own unique view of Jerusalem. Other religions in Israel include Druze, Baha’i, Buddhists, Hindus and a scattering of NeoPagans. These folks may just call Jerusalem their earthly home, but that doesn’t lessen their personal claim on it. It might also be noted a 2015 Gallop Poll revealed 65% of Israelis say they are “not religious” or “convinced atheists.”

So, Varvel’s assertion is the U.S. government should pick one “establishment of religion” and its particular interpretation of the Bible, over other religions and even other Biblical interpretations, to determine foreign policy. Isn’t that unconstitutional? Then, he believes we should enact foreign policy imposing this one religious belief system over an entire diverse population and their belief systems (or lack thereof) no matter what adverse regional, social, financial, civil or, yes, religious consequences ensue. Wouldn’t that be considered unChrist-like? 

The purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to protect U.S. citizens and promote our interests abroad. It should be based on reality, intelligence, international law, national interest and respect for the nations and peoples of the world.
It should not be based on 2 Chronicles 12:13.

Deborah Bovard

Indianapolis