By Rob Bell of Pay Magazine

We ask whether a ban on lunchtime drinking is the right way to tackle alcohol’s effect on business…

The lunchtime pint in ingrained in UK and Irish working cultures and while no company would tolerate employees starting their working day under the influence, most have turned a blind eye to the odd drink. However, this is beginning to change, with some companies instituting a total ban on drinking within working hours.

Excessive drinking has a huge impact on performance. Health and Safety Executive research points to lateness, absenteeism, workplace accidents, low morale and productivity and bad behaviours – up to and including increased harassment and even fighting. Up to 17 million days are lost each year through employees ringing in sick with a hangover, at a cost of up to £1.8 billion each year, according to charity Alcohol Concern.

Further research, this time from the Chartered Management Institute (CIPD) found that 20% of managers feel that alcohol misuse in the workplace has risen in recent years. More than half said drinking during working hours should be banned altogether.

But is there that much of a problem, and does the UK differ from other countries? A European Union survey found limited implementation of workplace alcohol policies and little regulation of consumption inside working hours. For example, in Italy, while consumption of alcohol in the workplace is banned, “reasonable amounts” of beer or wine may be consumed in work cafes at lunchtime; and in France consumption in the workplace is banned – except of course for beer, wine and cider.

Research by the University at Buffalo, part of the State University of New York, found that workplace alcohol use and impairment directly affects an estimated 15% of the US workforce. Michael Frone, principal investigator on the study, estimates that 8.9 million workers have drunk alcohol at least once during the workday. “Most workers who drink during the workday do so during lunch breaks,” he says. “Alcohol is the most widely used and misused substance in the workforce and the misuse of alcohol by employees is an important issue with the potential to undermine productivity and safety.”

Beer Ban

Safety is a key issue, and concerns about the possibility of underground train drivers drinking on the job led directly to Transport for London’s total ban on alcohol for all staff. But there are other considerations.

For example, Brighton Council spokesperson Alan Stone says: “Our original policy on drink or drugs basically said that you could not attend work incapable through drugs or drink. The decision for a total ban was taken to make explicit professional standards on how staff present themselves to customers. In short, it was about not dealing with residents or other professionals smelling of drink because that’s not a good image.”

Stone says that the number of people – out of 7,000 staff – who went drinking at lunchtime was absolutely minimal and the number returning drunk even less. “But even one worker giving a member of the public a bad impression is something we’re keen to avoid,” he said.

Handle With Care

But while Brighton Councils workforce has been generally supportive of the ban, there are issues that must be carefully managed if a company is not to risk alienating or angering staff that see what they do at lunchtime as their own business.

A straw poll of employees at London businesses came up with a similar – and slightly hostile – attitude from many. A Ban would “only make employees feel pushed around” said one; “An out and out ban would infringe upon people who drink responsibly at lunchtimes,” said another. “It would breed resentment of a Big Brother employer and would lead to an ‘us and them’ scenario between the workforce and management,” said a third. And it is the feeling that an employer is infringing on the workforce’s rights that makes it difficult to gain acceptance for complete bans.

Ben Willmott, employee relations advisor at the CIPD says: “Employers are coming to recognise that it is important to have clear guidelines on what is and isn’t acceptable in the workplace. The starting point is clear communication. A policy needs to spell out what’s acceptable – if any drinking is to be allowed at all. “It’s also important – if drinking is to be allowed at all. “It’s also important – if drinking is not permitted – that it is explained why, so the employer is not seen as seeking to infringe on employees’ personal liberties. It needs to be made clear that the company is taking action for a business reason.”

However many companies do not even have a formal alcohol policy. When research into UK companies’ alcohol policies were last carried out in 2001, over 40% of organisations did not have a policy. This is changing, but as an Alcohol Concern spokesperson says: “We view alcohol policies as fundamental to tackling alcohol-related problems at work, whether driven by concerns about health and safety or costs and business effectiveness.”

Taking the step to ban drinking at lunchtime requires careful thought, particularly in sectors such as public relations where it might be expected that a company representative have a glass of wine while meeting clients in a restaurant. It is almost impossible for a ban to work unless it is a blanket ban – employees are unlikely to be happy about forgoing their beloved lunchtime pint if management is seen to flout the rules.

Enforcement is also an issue, and needs to be managed sensitively. However, as Willmott says: “There is absolutely no point in having a policy if it is not enforced. If employees think a lunchtime drinking ban has been put in place as a PR stunt and that the employer doesn’t mind if they have a quiet drink, then it will undermine other policies on staff conduct.”

If a zero tolerance policy is put in place, employers could back it up with testing, a move supported by 55% of managers, according to research from the Cambridge-MIT Institute, CMI. However, compulsory testing is difficult to justify unless jobs are safety critical, as with Transport for London, which explains that “as we are responsible for the safety of millions of people daily, we operate a stringent testing system for alcohol and drugs and all employees must comply with drugs and alcohol standards at work, regardless of their post.”

Under any circumstances, testing is unlikely to be popular, and trade unions have shown themselves to be actively opposed. Trades Union Congress (YUC) general secretary Brendan Barber has said: “No one is suggesting that it is acceptable to be high or drunk at work but staff who may have drink or related problems need help not disciplinary action. A policy for identifying symptoms and a programme for dealing with employee’s drug and drink problems is far more effective than random testing.”

While many employers would argue for their right to test their staff for alcohol, especially when it has been consumed on their time, Barber’s point about making sure help is available rather that resort to disciplinary action is one that is echoed by every organisation working it the field.

As Willmott says: “Where a company does have individuals with alcohol-related problems it is important to provide help in the first instance before disciplinary action is taken.”