Saturday, 15 January 2005 - 12:00 PM

This presentation is part of: Poster Session II

How Do Worker Characteristics And Workplace Variables Relate To Working Class Problematic Drinking?

Based on the workplace and alcohol use conceptual framework of Ames and Janes (1992), the current investigation examined the relationship of several workplace variables and worker characteristic variables to problematic drinking within the working class. Working class employees have been reported to engage in higher levels of problematic drinking when compared to middle/upper class employees (e.g., Parker & Harford, 1992). Therefore, the current study surveyed (N = 299) union-represented administrative support and blue collar workers at a public urban university. A mailed self-report instrument achieved an overall response rate of 68%. In preparation for a binary logistic regression, t-tests examined mean differences between problematic and non-problematic drinkers as indicated by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) on the following workplace variables: task-related work stress; sexual harassment; generalized workplace abuse; alienation as represented by powerlessness; workplace social support; and workplace physical hazards. Similarly, the chi-square statistic examined the relationship between worker characteristics (i.e., gender, heavy drinking common and socially accepted in family of origin, heavy drinking common and socially accepted in community of origin) and employee drinking (i.e., problematic versus non-problematic drinking). Results: “Physical hazards” was the only workplace variable found to be statistically significant between problematic and non-problematic drinkers (t(264) = -2.56, two-tailed p = .011 ), with workers who reported problematic levels of drinking indicating higher levels of exposure to workplace physical hazards such as dangerous equipment, dangerous work methods, and dangerous chemicals. As expected, statistically significant differences were found between worker characteristics and problematic versus non-problematic levels of drinking: gender (x² (1, N = 287) = 9.53, p = .002); “heavy drinking common and socially accepted in family of origin” (x² (1, N = 284) = 9.97, p = .002); and “heavy drinking common and socially accepted in community of origin” (x² (1, N = 285) = 4.11, p = .043). Chi-square results indicated that more men than women reported problematic drinking, as well as workers who reported a family of origin and/or community of origin in which heavy drinking was common and socially accepted. Results of the logistic regression model indicated that the worker characteristics of gender (OR: 4.2) and “heavy drinking common and socially accepted in family of origin” (OR: 3.4) as well as “physical hazards” (recoded as a dichotomous variable) (OR: 2.6) predicted (p values < .05) working class problematic use of alcohol. Implications: Preliminary study findings support the relationship of both worker characteristics and the workplace variable of physical hazards as contributors to working class problematic use of alcohol. Furthermore, findings support the social work theory of person-environment in that both person-related and environment-related factors may contribute to working class problematic drinking. The implication for social work practice is for social workers to explore with clients, particularly working class clients, how personal risk characteristics and physically hazardous work environments may contribute to problematic drinking.

See more of Poster Session II
See more of Oral and Poster

See more of Celebrating a Decade of SSWR (January 13 - 16, 2005)