Survey shows drinking costs business $450 million a year – here’s what you can do

Australian businesses are losing over $450 million every year due to workers’ excessive drinking according to a new survey published in the Medical Journal of Australia, with colleagues often having to work extra hours to pick up the slack from affected staff.

Legal expert Peter Vitale says businesses must stop this problem before it becomes even larger, and those businesses operating heavy machinery or industrial equipment must adopt a zero-tolerance policy.

“This activity is often hard to combat because it’s such an entrenched culture in some places, and in some areas I do believe it’s very hard to stop this with a zero-tolerance policy. But for those in dangerous professions, it’s necessary,” Vitale says.

The study found that out of the 2,649 respondents, 31.7% reported having dealt with co-workers who drink heavily, and 8% said they were negatively affected by their activity. Another 3.5% said they even had to work extra hours to make up for lost productivity.

“Among those who had to work extra hours because of co-workers’ alcohol drinking, the burden was considerable,” the article reports.

“On average, these workers reported having to work extra hours 20.9 times in the year… This amounted to an additional 48.1 hours per affected respondent worked in the year; or, to put it another way, a little more than an extra week worked in the year because of co-workers’ alcohol drinking.”

The average pay rate of workers putting in extra hours because of their colleagues’ drinking was found to be $23.80.

Expanding that into the country’s full population, report author Michael Livingstone from the Turning Point Drug and Alcohol centre found the total annual cost to the economy because of excessive drinking is $453 million.

The study also found young employees and males were more likely to be absent due to excessive drinking, and those colleagues having to cover for them were also more likely to be also younger, and male.

However, the problem may be even bigger than employers recognise, with Livingstone saying the survey “may represent the tip of the iceberg”.

“The cost of alcohol use in the workplace is multi-faceted and considerable… [It] can be caused by a reduction in the productive workforce from premature mortality or morbidity, absenteeism due to alcohol-related sickness, and reduced productivity while at work.”

Vitale says that as a first step, employers need to recognise the nature of the problem.

He says if a staff member arrives affected by alcohol once or twice, it may be better to let the issue lie, but if it is ongoing and regularly affects performance, there is definitely a need to have a formal discussion.

“I think if this is ongoing, then there is some scope to address the issue. The employer could point out this is happening, and then encourage methods for productivity to pick up. There is also a possibility they could point to health information or a course the employee could attend.”

However, he says this would only be appropriate for a more casual setting like an office. If employees are operating heavy industrial equipment, he says it’s better to simply have a zero-tolerance policy.

“I think in those circumstances companies should encourage zero tolerance. Many large mining and engineering firms use random drug and alcohol testing, and employees don’t necessarily like it but this is dangerous equipment we are using here.”

“There is a significant risk here for the employer if someone is allowed to use this type of machinery, and then an accident happens which results in someone losing a limb. This is potentially a very serious issue and a zero-tolerance policy is warranted.”

Vitale says the solution is having clear, explicit policies about drinking, and educating employees about what that policy is, how it works, and what will happen when it is broken.

“This is a health issue, and like any other health issue it needs a clear policy. If someone is coming into work hung over and their performance is becoming regularly affected, then that policy will allow you to confront the employee.”