Booze in the workplace

'Is there a place for alcohol in the British workplace?' employers are asking following the Governments announcement that 15 million working days a year (worth 2.5 billion) are lost to the economy as a consequence of alcohol-related absenteeism.

We run straight into the class divide here, says lawyer Graham Small, a partner at Manchester law firm Rowe Cohen. If you're driving a JCB or other dangerous machinery, the answer is 'No'. If you're closing a deal or opening a theatrical production, it's clearly 'Yes'.

Although countless thousands of people regard alcoholic beverages as part and parcel of their normal working lives, for others it can be illegal and destructive at best or, at worst, lethally dangerous, says Small.

The problem is that it has become so integrated into our culture, the law is often very ambivalent about what is, or is not, alcohol abuse in the workplace. Over the years all sorts of elevated and successful people, most notably Sir Winston Churchill, appeared to function perfectly well under the constant influence of alcohol. Many successful people in business and the professions openly admit to regular use of it - but none of us wants to board a plane being piloted by an alcoholic or share a motorway with a habitual drunk.

In law, a hangover is a straight-forward matter of self-inflicted temporary poisoning - but most employers regard it as an immutable fact of life rather than a serious abdication of responsibility.


There is no solution to the problem of days lost to the economy. People smoke, knowing full well that they are both becoming addicted and slowly crippling themselves and burdening the already overburdened National Health Service by so doing. Immoderate drinkers know perfectly well that they are doing themselves harm, risking addiction and rendering themselves incapable of their best efforts at work but continue to enjoy the stimulation alcohol offers.

We have also come to accept double-standards when viewing
narcotic drug. If someone came back from a lunchtime business meeting literally reeling and slurring their speech due to the effects of an illegal narcotic, like LSD, most business people would be absolutely outraged. If the drug in question is alcohol, it's tends to be regarded as just overzealous salesmanship or an over-developed sense of the importance of social interaction.

No amount of propaganda or persuasion shows the slightest sign of changing these deep-rooted habits and attitudes, Small concludes. In my view it will take generations to change attitudes which have taken generations to accrue. The Government might just as well accept that 2.5 billion in wasted working days is the price we have to pay for living in an alcohol tolerant society. The duty collected on the sale of the alcohol in the first place more than compensates for the loss of revenue to the exchequer anyway.

From a legal perspective, employers have very little recourse in dealing with employees with alcohol problems until tangible damage or loss has occurred. Even then, the Court tends to be philosophical about work-related inebriation. Suggestions, as to why this should be so, on a postcard, please.