Substance abuse in the American workplace: causes and policy solutions

¶ … Workplace

The statistics are sobering. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration estimates that of America's 17.2 million illicit drug users, three quarters are employed either full-time or part-time. Combine this with abusers of prescription drugs and alcohol and it is apparent that substance abuse in the workplace is a serious problem for American employers. Indeed, between 10 and 20% of workplace deaths are related to drugs or alcohol, and the industries with the highest rates of drug use are also those with the highest risk for workplace injuries (OSHA, 2010). Beyond the physical harm, substance abuse is also linked to productivity issues stemming from increased absenteeism, decreased performance and crime. In 1998, productivity losses from substance abuse cost American businesses an estimated $97.7 billion (Gmel & Rehm, 2003). No workplace is immune, but this is a problem that can be addressed. This paper will examine the issue of substance abuse in the workplace at its roots, and use that understanding to derive a policy prescription that will help my company. It is hypothesized that stronger social controls, combined with tougher company policy, can decrease the social and economic impacts of substance abuse in my current workplace.

The Issue

Substance abuse is defined as substance use that has the following impacts -- failure to fulfill major obligations at work or home; continued abuse even in situations when it is physically hazardous; use that creates legal problems; and use that leads to recurrent social or interpersonal problems (Gmel & Rehm, 2003). With respect to the first impact, abuse is specifically associated with absenteeism, performance reduction, causing injury or death and other negative impacts. The prevalence of substance abuse in American society has resulted in these impacts being felt broadly in the economy and in nearly every workplace.

Nearly seventy percent of substance abusers hold a job (FSIPP, 2010). Employers are often hesitant to address the issue because of the high cost of replacing employees, or because the employee is valuable to the firm (Jaffer et al., 2008). However, the increased risks and decreased productivity associated with substance abuse means that the issue needs to be addressed. This is especially true given that substance abuse is increasing. Since 2005, for example, prescription opiate use among American workers has increased by 40% (FSIPP, 2010). With these rates of prevalence, employers are often compelled to hire or retain workers with substance abuse problems for lack of a better alternative.

In our company, many of the impacts of substance abuse in the workplace can be seen. Although the company has thankfully been able to avoid injury and death from such abuse, absenteeism is high among some employees and this impacts total productivity. There are also negative affects of the morale of other workers, who feel as though they are forced to cover for their drunk, drugged or absent co-workers. There is a sense that management is either unwilling or unprepared to address the problem. Trouble employees are often perceived as being able to fool management as well, meaning that many in the company believe management is unable to understand the full scope of the problem. This contrasts not only with the objective of maintaining a healthy working environment, but it also contrasts with the prevailing laws, most of which demand some form of action -- either preventative or corrective -- on the part of management under the Drug-Free Workplace Act (SAMHSA, 2010).

Addressing the Issue

The first step to addressing the issue of substance abuse in the workplace is to be able to identify the problem. Keleman (1995) identifies a number of key signs -- performance problems, appearance (in particular dilated pupils and lack of physical upkeep), lack of coordination, inappropriate mood swings, psychomotor agitation and thought disturbances. When an employee is suspected of substance abuse, the problem should be addressed immediately. Often, employers are hesitant to address an abuse problem with an employee while the employee is high or drunk. Yet failure to do so could open the company to litigation if that employee were to injure a third party, so immediate action is critical.

Another critical means of identifying abusers is the field test. Randomized testing of employees on the job is correlated with higher outcomes for identifying abusers, which in turn lowers the company's legal risk. When employees are aware of a testing problem, they are more likely to avoid abusing drugs or alcohol around work times (Cook, Back & Trudeau, 1996). While this may not entirely solve the problem, it does reduce the risk to the employer.

Beyond immediate action, companies can reduce the impact that substance abuse has in the workplace through a number of social controls. Organizational policies are a critical component of social controls to reduce the incidence of substance abuse in the workplace. There is evidence of effectiveness of zero tolerance policies. Such policies not only provide the company with a mechanism for enforcing a drug-free workplace, but they also create a strong social norm within the organizational culture that discourages substance abuse. Mehay and Pacula (1999) showed evidence that zero tolerance policies, when combined with randomized testing, provided a significant deterrent effect, resulting in a reduction of drug prevalence rates.

Workplace training and education levels also help to set social norms within the organization. Ultimately, the objective of training is to ensure that all employees are aware of the company's policies. This is expected to contribute to the development of an organization culture that discourages drug use in the workplace. While there is some stigma attached to most illicit drugs, this issue is of particular concern with respect to prescription drugs and alcohol, which by their legal nature face less social stigma that illicit drugs. Reynolds, Lehman and Bennett (2008) showed that increased workforce training was the highest correlate for increased social stigma regarding drinking in the workplace. This highlights the important role that training has in reducing substance abuse in the workplace.

The money that a corporation spends on its substance abuse prevention programs also sends a signal to the employees with respect to the degree to which such behavior will be tolerated. In addition to basic training and testing programs, intervention services are another investment that is prescribed to help companies address abuse. Intervention services such as counseling, self-help programs and corporate spending on third-party substance abuse programs is sometimes overlooked by employers because of the high up-front costs, but such programs should be viewed as a form of corporate investment. If corporations are reluctant to address abusing employees because of the value of those employees or the replacement costs associated with termination, then companies should consider as an alternative helping that employee to overcome his or her abuse problems. Higher levels of prevention and intervention spending should result in lower levels of substance abuse in the workplace, while allowing companies to retain valuable employees (Cook & Schlenger, 2002).

Conclusion

In our company, substance abuse by employees is a serious problem, and the impacts mirror those of other companies in the developed world. While we do not experience significant rates of injuries as the result of substance abuse, we do experience the other negative outcomes that are associated with substance abuse in the workplace -- absenteeism and lost productivity especially. There are pervasive negative effects on the culture of the organization as well, with employee resentment occurring, but yet not being manifested in either stigmatization or support.

As with most firms, we understand that it is in all likelihood easier and cheaper to address substance abuse issues with the employee than it is to find, hire and train new employees. As such, a program of strategies has been recommended that has been demonstrated in the field to have positive impacts on substance abuse rates and effects. The overarching theme of the program is the intent to change the organizational culture with respect to substance abuse. The current culture simply does not handle the issue well. The organizational culture can be changed through increased education and training, increased prevention and intervention investment and the implementation of random testing.

These tactics will all serve to change the social norms within the company in two ways. The first is by introducing social norms that specifically identify substance abuse as a critical problem in the workplace. The second is by demonstrating to the workforce that management takes the issue of substance abuse seriously and is willing to address the issue in a positive, productive manner. Such tactics should improve the rate of employee buy-in, leading to the desired culture shift and resulting positive outcomes. The literature on the subject supports the program's effectiveness and provides guidance for the implementation of these tactics as well.

Works Cited:

Bacharach, S.; Bamberger, P. & Biron, M. (2010). Alcohol consumption and workplace absenteeism: The moderating effect of social support. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 95 (2) 334-348.

Cook, R.; Back, A. & Trudeau, J. (1996). Substance abuse prevention in the workplace: Recent findings and an expanded conceptual model. Journal of Primary Prevention. Vol. 16 (3) 319-339.

Cook, R. & Schlenger, W. (2002). Prevention of substance abuse in the workplace: Review of research on the delivery of services. Journal of Primary Prevention. Vol. 23 (1) 115-142.

FSIPP. (2010). Prescription drug abuse in the workplace on the rise. Centre Daily Times. Retrieved October 23, 2010 from http://www.centredaily.com/2010/10/21/2287321/prescription-drug-abuse-in-the.html

Gmel, G. & Rehm, J. (2003). Harmful alcohol use. Alcohol Research & Health. Vol. 27, 2003.

Jaffer, N.; Jamieson, B.; Kennedy, J.; Khan, J.; Knox, H.; Koenig, E.; Kother, D. & Lamb, J. (2008). Resources of relevance to occupational therapists working to help employees whose misuse of alcohol affects the workplace. University of Alberta. Retrieved October 23, 2010 from http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/ot/pdfs/Selected%20Resources%20book%20MAy%202009.pdf#page=30

Keleman, D. (1995). How to recognize substance abuse in the workplace. Supervision. Retrieved October 23, 2010 from http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management/520699-1.html

Mehay, S. & Pacula, R. (1999). The effectiveness of workplace drug prevention policies: Does zero tolerance work? NBER Working Paper No. w7383.

Miller, T.; Zaloshnja, T. & Spicer, R. (2006). Effectiveness and benefit-cost of peer-based workplace substance abuse prevention coupled with random testing. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Vol. 39 (3) 565-573.

OSHA. (2010). Workplace substance abuse. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Retrieved October 23, 2010 from http://63.234.227.130/SLTC/substanceabuse/index.html

Reynolds, G.; Lehman, W. & Bennett, J. (2008). Psychosocial correlates of the perceived stigma of problem drinking in the workplace. Journal of Primary Prevention. Vol. 29 (4) 341-356.

SAMHSA. (2010). Why you should care about having a drug-free workplace. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved October 23, 2010 from http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov/wpworkit/pdf/why_you_should_care_about_having_a_drug_free_workplace_fs.pdf