employers in the mining industry are strict with
respect to alcohol use because of hazards on the
job.

As in the case of drug use, it is difficult to
make comparisons of the industry findings to
other studies because of the different job classi-
fications and different types of questions used in
these studies. However, previous research deal-
ing with alcohol use at work does indicate that
usage is higher for men than for women and for
whites than for minorities, which is also the case
from the present survey.'°

WHILE IT IS DIFFICULT to measure the impact of
drug and alcohol use on productivity and perfor-
mance, information from the youth survey does
provide a glimpse into the patterns of drug and
alcohol use in the workplace. We hope addi-
tional research will increase our understanding
and help form policies which would aid in reduc-
ing drug use and its consequences. 1]

Footnotes

’ See The Study of the Economic Costs to Society of
Alcohol, Drugs and Mental Disorders (North Carolina,
Research Triangle Institute, 1981).

2 See Survey of Employer Antidrug Programs, Report
760 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989).

> Studies that examine drug users by job category
include: Roger F. Cook, “Drug Use Among Working Adults:
Prevalence Rates and Estimation Methods,” and Harwin L.
Voss, “Patterns of Drug Use: Data From the 1985 National
Household Survey.” Both are published in Steven W. Gust
and J. Michael Walsh, eds., Drugs in the Workplace.
Research and Evaluation Data, National Institute on Drug
Abuse Research Monograph Series, 1989.

4 In this study, all results are weighted to control for the
oversamples and for attrition, so that the findings are
representative of this age group.

5 See Marilyn Manser, Michael Pergamit, and Wanda
Bland Peterson, “National Longitudinal Surveys: develop-
ment and uses,” Monthly Labor Review, July $990, pp. 32—
37.

© Data on alcohol use at work are now available from
the 1988 survey.

7 One examination of the relationship between drug
use and work is by Robert Kaestner, “The Effect of Mlicit
Drug Use on the Wages of Young Adults,” National Bureau
of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3535, Dec.
1990.

*See Roger F. Cook, “Drug Use Among Working
Adults.”

’Sce Barbara S, Mensch and Denise B. Kandel,
“Underreporting of Substance Use in a National Longitudi-

Table 4. Percent of young workers, 19 to 27 years old, who
drank alcohol at work, by type of effect drinking
produced and industry, 1984

Effect of drinking at work
Industry Missed Lu
‘work Drunk ost or Quit Not
because of| on job [e@rlylost) job | promoted
hangover job

Total... 0.0. 3.0 32 14 09 a)
Agriculture... . 43 48 15 1.0 19
Mining ....--. 68 26 3.0 23 23
Construction 6.0 45 14 16 25
Manufacturing ... 47 36 17 14 12
Transportation and

communication 10 15 7 13 8
Wholesale

and retail ....... 26 35 1.0 a 6
Finance, insurance,

and reai estate . 3.0 a4 13 6 7
Business and

repair services - 28 3.9 14 17 go
Personal services 1.0 3.0 4 6 4
Entertainment and

recreation ...... 36 52 1.4 6 17
Professional

services . 1.8 18 6 6 6
Public administration | 1.6 15 | 8 A 1
‘SOURCE: National Longitudinal Surveys—Youth cohort, 1984.

nal Youth Cohort,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 52,
1988, pp. 100-124,

*” All inferences drawn in this analysis are statistically
significant at the 95-percent confidence level

“An exception to the lower workplace drug use of
younger workers is among black men. Only 5.9 percent of
19- to 23-year-old black men report using drugs, compared
to 8.0 percent for 24-10 27-year-olds.

See V.H. Raveis and Denise B. Kandel, “Changes in
Drug Behavior from the Middle to Late Twenties: Initia-
tion, Persistence, and the Cessation of Use,” American
Journal of Public Health, vol. 77, 1987, pp. 607-11; also
Roger F. Cook, “Drug Use Among Working Adults.”

The extent of this difference may be overstated, as it
was found by Mensch and Kandel (“Underreporting of
Substance Abuse”) that underreporting of drug and alcohol
use is more common among minorities than whites.

\ See Roges F, Cook, “Drug Use Among Working
Adults” and Harwin L. Voss, “Patterns of Drug Use.”

'S Because no time frame is mentioned in this question,
it is implied that the question refers to the entire working
life of the respondent. However, there are a few cases in
which the respondents claim that alcohol has never inter-
fered with work, but in previous surveys (1982 and 1983),
they have admitted that alcohol had interfered at some time.
Therefore, in the data presented here, respondents have
been assigned an affirmative answer if they answer affir-
matively in the 1984 survey or have done so in any previous
year,

"© See Harwin L. Voss, “Patterns of Drug Use.”

Monthly Labor Review August 1991

7



Drug Use at Work

dents were asked if drinking has “ever interfered
with work on a job.” Because the phrase, “ever
interfered with work on a job,” produces a sub-
jective response which depends on the view of
the respondent, specific questions about the ef-
fects of alcohol at work during the past year were
also asked.’* Such questions referred to how
alcohol may have limited both an individual’s
performance and his or her career progress.

Table 3 presents the responses from the ques-
tions dealing with alcohol use at work. As can be
seen, 9.0 percent of all workers aged 19 to 27
believed that drinking has “ever interfered with
work on a job.” Men reported having alcohol
interfere with their work at nearly twice the rate
of women (11.6 percent, compared with 6.0
percent) The rate for white workers is much
higher than that for blacks, with 12.7 percent of
white men and 6.8 percent of white women
having had alcohol interfere with their work,
compared with rates of 6.1 percent for black men
and 1.7 percent for black women. However,
unlike the demographic patterns for drug use,
the rate at which alcohol interferes with work is
not similar for Hispanics and blacks. The rate at
which alcohol interferes with work is much
higher for Hispanics, at 10.2 percent for His-
panic men and 3.8 percent for Hispanic women,
as compared with 6.1 percent for black men and
1.7 percent for black women.

While a fairly large number of workers re-
ported that their drinking habits had affected
their work performance, a much smaller number
(about one-third as many) believed that drinking
had adversely affected their career. In particular,
while 3.0 percent of all workers had missed work
and 3.1 percent had gotten drunk on the job
during a 1-year period, only 0.9 percent felt that
their chances for a promotion or raise had been

hurt by their drinking, only 1.1 percent had been
fired or nearly fired, and 0.9 percent had quit
voluntarily because of their drinking. It is inter-
esting to note that the difference between the
percentage of men who have gotten drunk on the
job and the percentage of women who have done
so is quite large (4.4 percent versus 1.6 percent).

For the most part, the pattern of alcohol use
by demographic group is similar to that of drug
use. Specifically, men are more likely than
women to answer the questions affirmatively,
and whites tend to report their use of alcohol at
work more often than do minorities.

Table 4 presents the responses to the ques-
tions about the effects of alcohol use at work by
industry. While the small percentages make it
difficult to make strong inferences, there are a
few interesting findings. First, young workers in
the two industries which have a relatively high
incidence of drug use (construction and enter-
tainment/recreation) aiso have relatively high
rates of alcohol use. In the construction industry,
6.0 percent of all young workers have stayed at
home within the previous year because of a
hangover, and in the entertainmentrecreation
industry, 5.2 percent have gotten drunk on the
job.

Second, although there are high rates of self-
reported drug use among young workers in the
transportation industry, the use of alcohol among
those workers is relatively low. The transporta-
tion/communication industry has the lowest rates
(among young workers in all industries) of em-
ployees missing work because of a hangover
(1.0 percent) and getting drunk (1.5 percent).

Third, although 3.0 percent of young mining
workers believe that their drinking has led them
tobe fired or almost fired, only 2.6 percent admit
to being drunk on the job. This may be because

Table 3. Percent of young workers, 19 to 27 years old, who drank alcohol at work by
race and Hispanic origin and type of effect drinking produced, 1984
Men We
Effect of drinking] |. omen
at work | Total | white | Black |Hispanic| Total | White | Black |Hispanic

Intertered

with work 9.0 11.6 12.7 61 10.2 6.0 6.9 LZ 38
Missed work

because of

hangover 3.0 34 36 24 3.3 24 27 1.0 17
Got drunk on

the job....... 3. 44 44 49 2.6 1.6 16 13 V7
Lost or nearly

lost job ....... V1 15 ws Vt V7 6 6 8 7
Quit job 9 12 13 9 12 5 4 7 3
Hurt chances

for raise or

Promotion . . g 1.3 1.3 a1 8 5 4 8 7

Source: National Longitudinal Surveys—Youth cohort, 1984

6 Monthly Labor Review August 199]

H



Philip M. Gleason,
Jonathan R. Veum,
and

Michael R. Pergamit

Philip M. Gleason is a
former intern in the Office
of Economic Research,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Jonathan R.
Veum and Michael R.
Pergamit are economists
in the same office.

Drug and alcohol use at work:
a survey of young workers

Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
reveal that drug and alcohol use in the workplace

is more common among men than women

and among blue-collar than white-collar workers

U.S. workers aged 19 to 27 was 7.0

percent in 1984, according to data
from the 1984 National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth. White men aged 19 to 23 reported the
highest incidence of workplace drug use. Re-
ported drug use is higher among men than
women, among whites than minorities, and
among workers aged 19 to 23 than those aged 24
to 27. Blue-collar workers have higher rates of
drug use than white-collar workers. Also, drug
use is most common among young workers in
entertainment/recreation and construction in-
dustries, and least common among those in
professional services and public administration
industries. When each industry is classified by
occupation, data show that transportation indus-
try operatives have a relatively high rate of
workplace drug use. This is notable in light of
recent tragic accidents in the transportation in-
dustry attributed to the use of drugs.

Drug and alcohol use in the workplace has
been a particular concern to employers and con-
sumers who fear that workers who engage in this
type of activity on the job are less productive,
more likely to steal, and more likely to cause
accidents than workers who do not use drugs or
drink on the job. For these reasons, drug use in

T he incidence of drug use on the job among

the workplace cost employers an estimated $16.4
billion in 1981."

Inresponse to this problem, a large number of
firms have developed Employee Assistance
Programs which attempt to identify and provide
treatment to workers with drug and alcohol
problems. These programs have become more
prevalent; the Bureau of Labor Statistics esti-
mates that in 1988, 30 percent of all workers had
access to Employee Assistance Programs.
Also, approximately 20 percent of all workers
were employed by firms which had drug testing
policies.”

Despite the severity of the problem and the
growing concern among employers and society
about the adverse consequences of drug use,
there has been little research dealing with work-
related drug use, primarily because very few
data sets provide information on both an
individual's drug usage and work activity. Some
Tesearch identifies drug users by job category,
but to date, there have been no studies examining
drug use in the workplace.*

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
is an ongoing study of the labor market experi-
ences of individuals born between 1957 and
1964 and contains an overrepresentation of
blacks, Hispanics, and economically disadvan-

Monthly Labor Review August 1991 3


Drug Use at Work

Table 1 Percent of young workers, 19 to 27 years old, who
reported using drugs at work, by race and Hispanic
origin, 1984
‘Sex and race Total, 19 to 27 19 to 23 24 to 27
years of age years of age years of age
Total 7.0 78 57
Men... oe... 9.5 10.6 8.0
White..... 10.1 115 8.2
Black . 67 5.9 8.0
Hispanic 65 78 42
Women. ... 42 5.0 32
White...... 45 54 3.3
Black .... 28 28 26
Hispanic . . 29 29 28
‘SouRcE: National Longitudinal Surveys—Youth cohort, 1984.

taged whites.* Sponsored by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, this survey has been conducted annu-
ally since 1979.' The original sample size was
12,686; in the 1984 survey, 12,069 persons were
still being interviewed.

For the first time, the 1984 youth survey
asked participants if they had used drugs or felt
high during work or break time within the past
year. The specific drugs mentioned included
marijuana, hashish, nonprescription amphet-
amines, stimulants, nonprescription barbiturates,
sedatives or tranquilizers, psychedelics, cocaine,
heroin or other narcotics, and inhalants. Ques-
tions about alcohol use were included in each
survey from 1982 through 1985.° Participants
were asked whether drinking has ever interfered
with their work on a job, as well as specific
questions about the effects of alcohol on their
work behavior.

This article, based on the unique data on drug
use available from the 1984 youth survey, de-
scribes patterns of drug and alcohol use among
young workers.’ The rates of workplace drug use
among these workers in different age, sex, and
Trace groups as well as in different industry and
occupational classifications are also examined.

Data collection method

To date, the primary methods of estimating the
extent of drug use are by individuals responding
whether they do in fact use drugs, (self reports)
and by testing individuals for drug use.* While
self reports provide a great deal of information
about an individual’s behavior, the validity of
this method is often questioned. The accuracy of
drug test data is not disputed as much as are self
reports, but the scope of drug test information is
extremely narrow and estimates are rarely drawn
from it.

4° Monthly Labor Review August 1991

Research by Barbara Mensch and Denise
Kandel implies that fewer individuals in the
1984 youth survey reported using illicit drugs
other than marijuana, compared with reports of
other national surveys of drug use.° For instance,
in a comparison with a similar age group from
the 1982 General Household Survey, they found
that approximately one-third fewer individuals
in the youth survey reported involvement with
cocaine and about half as many reported experi-
mentation with hallucinogens and tranquilizers.
The Mensch and Kandel study suggests that
underreporting seems to be more common among
light drug users (smoked marijuana 1 to 5 times
in 1980) than heavy users (smoked marijuana
more than 5 times in 1980), and more common
among blacks and Hispanics than among whites.

By comparison, this article focuses specifi-
cally on questions dealing with drug use at work,
whereas the Mensch and Kandel study looks at
overall drug use in society. It might be that drug
use at work is more socially unacceptable than
drug use off-the-job, leading workers to not
report on-the-job drug activity. However, it may
also be that individuals who use drugs at work
are more frequent users, and as Mensch and
Kandel document, this group is less likely to
underreport their drug use. Thus, it is unclear if
responses to work-related drug use are more or
less accurate than the responses to general drug
use.

Also in the youth survey analysis, all illicit
drugs are put into one category, whereas Mensch
and Kandel differentiate by type of drug. If
responses to questions regarding the use of mari-
juana at the workplace are answered truthfully,
but responses to those on the use of other illicit
drugs are underreported, then using a format in
which all drugs are placed in a single category
implies that the tabulations presented here should
not be severely biased by underreporting.

Hence, while there exists the potential pres-
ence of underreporting in workplace drug data in
the youth survey, it may not be significantly
different from other surveys which rely on re-
spondents to report their drug usage. Still, care
should be taken in the interpretation of the re-
sults, particularly in comparing rates of work-
place drug use by race or Hispanic origin.

Drug use at work

The rates of on-the-job drug use for demographic
groups are shown in table |. According to the
1984 youth survey, 7 percent of the U.S. work
force aged 19-27 in 1984 had used drugs on the
job within the previous year. There are a number
of clear patterns in the incidence of use among
demographic groups.’ The rate of workplace


drug use is higher for younger members of this
cohort. Workers aged 19 to 23 have a7.8-percent
rate of usage, while the rate for 24- to 27-year-
olds is 5.7 percent.'' These rates suggest that
drug use declines with age, as has been found in
other studies.'?

Tt also appears that on-the-job drug use is
more common among men than among women
within age and racial groups, with average rates
of 9.5 percent for men and 4.2 percent for wom-
en. The data also indicate that workplace drug
use is more common among white workers than
minorities, with the rate for whites being more
than 50 percent greater than the rate for blacks or
Hispanics."?

The workplace drug use of young workers by
occupation and industry is shown in table 2.
First, the occupational totals indicate that blue-
collar workers tend to have a much higher rate of
on-the-job drug use than do white-collar work-
ers. For instance, craftworkers, operatives, and
laborers all have rates of more than 9.0 percent,
while 4.5 percent of professional workers and
3.2 percent of managers are workplace drug
users. The industry totals indicate that the enter-
tainment/recreation (13.9 percent) and construc-
tion (12.9 percent) industries have the highest
teported rates of drug use, while the professional
services (2.9 percent) and public administration
industries (2.0 percent) have the lowest.

Many of the occupation/industry groups with
high rates of reported drug use are those in which
either public or worker safety could be threat-
ened by the use of illicit drugs. For example, in
the transportation industry, on-the-job drug use
is a particular concern among operatives-—13.1
percent of young workers in this field reported
using drugs on the job. Drug use is also some-
what high among craftworkers, operatives, and
laborers in the mining and construction indus-
tries, in which conditions are often dangerous. In
construction, 16.1 percent of craftworkers and
15.3 percent of operatives have reported using
drugs.

It is difficult to compare the occupation and
industry findings to previous research because
other studies use much broader occupational
classifications and do not make any inferences
about drug use by job category. Yet, other stud-
ies that examine drug use among workers do find
that drug use is generally higher among younger
workers than older workers, higher among men
than women, and higher among whites than
minorities, which is consistent with the results
found here.'*

Alcohol use at work

The 1984 youth survey also provides informa-
tion about the use of alcohol on the job. Respon-

Table 2. Percent of young workers, 19 to 27 years old, who used drugs while at work, by occupation and
industry, 1984
T ‘Occupation ee
Pro- Craft | Opera-
Clerical
fessional workers tives: Private
industry Total nd nd ae Kenn a) and and | except eters Service household
‘technical | ofticials workers | 8UPper- | kindred | farm workers
workers visors | workers
Total 7.0 45 3.2 5.3 5.0 11.2 9.3 96 8.0 7A
Agriculture 60 | 128 0 0 13.6 122 3.9 42 0 -
Mining. 6.2 oO 123.7 _ 0 6.6 8.6 96 0 _
Construction 129 1.2 4.2 = a8 16.1 15.3 87 19.8 -
Manufacturing 83 59 43 43 TA 11.4 B84 10.9 54 >
‘Transportation . : 75 51 98 0 39 81 13.4 112 = 45 -
Wholesale and retail . . 74 74 1.2 79 48 5.0 10.1 94 20.9 114 -
Finance, insurance,
and real estate .. 52 0.9 as 0 47 | 46.0 | 143.2 14.8 - 74 ~
Business and
repair services ... 72 9.2 32 1.2 66 97 44 12.5 - 44
Personal services ag 65 13 ° 97 19.4 6.6 14.0 9.7 7A
Entertainment and
recreation 139 | 19.3 18 0 11.8 0 = 32.5 — | 136 ~
Professional services. . 29 . 53 ‘0 31 64 10.4 0 = 27 0
Public administration 2.0 08 0 ‘0 26 1.8 54 12 0 24 =
‘This industry/ocoupation has fewer than 10 unweighted observations.
NoTE: Dash indicates industry/occupational category not applicable.
‘ounce: National Longitudinal Surveys—Youth cohort, 1984
-——————$ - ——$$—$ $$ —___—__—

Monthly Labor Review August 1991 5