Research Evidence – Prevalence and Productivity
In a study by Stallone and Kraus (1986), research was conducted into the effects of alcohol misuse. It was found that around 15% of alcohol users had fatal accidents. Normand et al (1990) conducted research by looking at U.S. postal workers who could have been misusing drugs. The findings revealed that drug users did not cause as many accidents as those who were under the influence of alcohol. Davis et al (1998) conducted a study based on drinking behaviour. The data displayed differences in consumption between sex, salary levels, senior executives, and manual workers. There were certain occupational groups that were identified as drinking more heavily than others. The heaviest drinkers appeared to be manual workers. This group tended to drink more than average in comparison to other groups in this study.
For substances other than alcohol, the estimates varied considerably depending on legality, availability, and reason for use. The estimates for prevalence of using illicit drugs in the U.K. is far from satisfactory and provides a great range of possible measures (Sulton and Maynard 1993). In other countries there are similar problems with prevalence estimates, and also from enforcement agencies and self-report surveys (United Nations and Social Council 1993). The cost of substance misuse in the workplace is primarily related to absenteeism, lost productivity, safety, and healthcare (MacDonald, Kapur, and Sorenson 1992).
Research evidence has shown that productivity can be difficult to measure. The occupational health service (O.H.S) provided evidence that showed that individuals under the influence of alcohol still managed to exhibit a degree of physical and mental control. It can be argued that alcoholism can be associated with mental psychosocial problems and also physiological problems. This causes individuals to drink excessively and in most cases, the consequences result in some degree of alcoholism and/or ill-health. Bandura and Lazarus (1988) suggested that psychosocial cues could be used to cope with alcohol misuse, when other responses are difficult to measure and expectations are high.
Risk Assessment and Control
The 1970 employee assistance programme (E.A.P.) was developed to ensure that sufferers received full support and assistance allowing examinations to be conducted on a regular basis, ensuring the health and safety of employees. The five-step risk assessment report gives five stages of what to do in the case of a suffering employee. These stages are:
- Look for hazards.
- Decide who may be harmed and how.
- Evaluate the risks and decide whether the existing precautions are adequate or whether more should be done.
- Record the findings.
- Review the assessment.
Risks control in the workplace means managers are able to detect a problem, provide
counselling to employees and monitor the level of drugs and alcohol in their system through a series of tests.
Criticisms
It can be argued that there is rarely enough information to differentiate between the patterns of alcohol and drugs misuse. Also, there is no information concerning the impairment of work functions that might have occurred in relation to drug use. It may be the case that the dose levels concerned, caused the individual no impairment, or that the impairment was limited to non-working hours.
Conclusion
From the data collected, Davis et al (1998) concluded that the consumption of alcohol in the workplace was a regular problem rather than a basic chronic one. The study proved that male manual workers appeared to be the highest consumers of alcohol. Research shows that alcohol related absenteeism is higher amongst heavier drinkers, but there does not appear to be a relationship between alcohol in terms of more general usage, or during working hours and absenteeism.
It appears that managers in industries are sometimes associated with high levels of consumption. It is also apparent that high levels of consumption are likely to arise in industries where work is seen as less safe and critical to ones health.
A majority of alcohol policies have been introduced and have been put in place as a response to external pressures. However there is a shortage of data that would enable external evaluations of implementation and their effectiveness in leading to successful outcomes to take place. Most policies seem to be based on a need to distinguish between alcohol use and its effects on health and behaviour in the workplace. There are some difficulties in many of the firms with regards to discriminating and implementing alcohol policies. There also appears to be a number of differing views on the purposes of alcohol policies and what is expected from them. These policies need to be discussed to prioritize goals as an aid to policy development.
For the most part, alcohol and drugs will always be taken by various employees, whether at work, or as is more likely the case in their own personal time. The extent to which this poses a problem is a difficult question to answer, but it can be argued that as long as consumption does not exceed reasonable levels, then the adverse impact on businesses and organizations will not be that great. It has also been shown in this discussion that alcohol misuse in the workplace is a far greater problem than drugs misuse. This could be down to the fact that the side-effects and the long-term physical impairments of alcohol consumption are greater than those of recreational drugs, or it could be due to the addictive nature of alcohol itself which leads to abnormal levels of consumption. In short, the scientific evidence provided in this discussion does not make the answer to this question any clearer. No-one can dispute the fact that alcohol and drugs misuse in the workplace is a bad thing, but it is harder to ascertain the extent to which this consumption is detrimental to safety at work and overall productivity.
On balance, given the scientific evidence, it would be safe to conclude that alcohol and drugs misuse in the workplace does indeed constitute a threat to safety and productivity, but that the problems created may not in themselves be that grave with regards to the consequences and the methods that would need to be used to rectify the problem. Consumption of alcohol and drugs is a lifestyle choice in that in most cases it does not correlate with stress at work or depression. Consumption occurs as a result of various social relationships or non work-related habits. This would not be a problem if employees were devoid of any influence of alcohol and drugs when they entered the workplace, but since the after-effects of taking drugs and drinking alcohol take time to subside, then it does become a problem for employers. It can also be argued that what employees get up to in their own time is none of the employers business, but whilst this argument stands up in relation to employees being 100% on form in the workplace, the same cannot be said of employees who come to work still physically and mentally impaired as a result of taking drugs or drinking alcohol to excess. In this situation, the employer has a right to know and/or a duty to take relevant action i.e. some kind of verbal warning.
Alcohol and drugs misuse in the workplace is a problem, but provided certain steps are taken, the threat to productivity and safety at work will decrease, and whilst employers have no place in advising individuals on their social lives, it is well within their jurisdiction to approach individuals who appear physically or mentally impaired, provided the aim is to understand the problem and resolve the situation satisfactorily.
References
i)Davies et al (1998) – Alcohol in the workplace.
ii)Guppy and Marsden (2002) – Review of alcohol and drugs in the workplace.
iii)Gust and Walsh (1991) – U.S. drugs at work report.
