Happy hour? Understanding the impact of alcohol in the workplace
In many workplaces, alcohol is embedded in company culture. From weekly happy hours to beer carts and kegs on tap, businesses — especially in the Triangle's tech and startup scene — use alcohol as a perk to attract employees and foster team bonding. According to an American Addiction Centers survey of 3,800 Americans, one-third of American workers think after-work drinks with colleagues is a good team-bonding method.
While these initiatives may seem harmless or even beneficial, they can have significant consequences for mental health, productivity and inclusivity.
The prevalence of workplace drinking
Workplace drinking is more common than many realize. According to Occupational Health & Safety, large federal surveys show that 24% of workers drank during the workday at least once in the past year. Additionally, 20% of workers and managers reported that a coworker's drinking, on or off the job, jeopardized their productivity and safety. Another study by the American Addiction Centers found 23% of employees have consumed alcohol during work hours.
"From a social perspective, alcohol in the workplace is seen as acceptable and there is often an unspoken rule that everyone participates," says Tameka Wade Brewington, a mental health and substance use counselor with 27 years of experience. Brewington, a board member of the Addiction Professionals of North Carolina and owner of Real Talk Counseling in Charlotte, North Carolina, helps working professionals navigate career and life transitions.
"Deals are made at the bar or on the golf course and most professional events and conferences include happy hours," she says. "The problem is, if you're drinking excessively, there will be consequences, both personally and professionally."
expand
While some companies promote moderate alcohol consumption to build camaraderie, workplace drinking can become a slippery slope. Employees may feel pressured to participate and those in recovery or with a family history of substance abuse may find these environments alienating or triggering.
The mental health consequences
Alcohol use is deeply linked to mental health. Studies connect excessive drinking with higher rates of anxiety, depression and stress. For professionals managing high workloads and tight deadlines, alcohol may serve as a coping mechanism, masking deeper issues rather than addressing them. Over time, casual workplace drinking can contribute to burnout, job dissatisfaction and substance use disorders.
"Because drinking is so normalized, many people struggle to recognize when they have an addiction," says Brewington.
Since networking and socializing in corporate America often involve alcohol, many functioning alcoholics exist in the workplace, she adds.
"We have men and women who go to work, perform their duties, manage families and still drink at least two drinks a day — every day," Brewington says. "But alcohol is progressive. Over time, you'll need more to get the same effect."
expand
.
The productivity and liability costs
Beyond mental health, workplace drinking has tangible business consequences. A Washington University School of Medicine study found that 9% of full-time U.S. workers — nearly 11 million people — met the diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Employees with severe AUD reported missing 32 workdays per year due to illness, injury or absenteeism — more than double the number of days missed by employees without AUD. In total, workers with AUD account for more than 232 million missed workdays annually.
Employees who frequently drink during or after work may experience decreased cognitive function, impaired decision-making and lower productivity. According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, workers with alcohol problems were 2.7 times more likely than others to have injury-related absences. Additionally, a hospital emergency department study found that 35% of patients with occupational injuries were at-risk drinkers.
While social drinking may seem harmless, companies encouraging alcohol consumption risk legal liability if an intoxicated employee causes harm.
Rethinking workplace culture
Rather than relying on alcohol to foster workplace connections, companies can adopt alternative strategies to promote a positive and inclusive environment:
Wellness programs: Encourage mental health initiatives such as mindfulness workshops or exercise classes.
Alcohol-free social events: Host team-building activities that don't revolve around drinking such as volunteer days, outdoor excursions or cooking classes.
Mocktail and coffee bars: Provide non-alcoholic options for social gatherings.
Flexible work policies: Support mental well-being by prioritizing work-life balance with flexible scheduling and remote work options.
"People who struggle with alcohol use disorder drink on autopilot — it's their way of coping with stress," Brewington says. "They can't wait to get off work to have a drink and unwind. But addiction often masks another issue, filling a void caused by stress or anxiety. It's crucial to find healthier ways to manage those feelings. And if someone can't manage their reliance on alcohol alone, there are resources available to help."
Caroline Barnhill is a freelance writer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
IVF parents are spending thousands to predict their babies' chances of having Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease
Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's … genetic optimization? Prospective parents using in vitro fertilization (IVF) will soon be able to select embryos based on their potential risk for diseases — including illnesses that develop later in life — thanks to a groundbreaking $5,999 service announced this week by a US biotech company. 'Before there's a heartbeat, there's DNA,' Kian Sadeghi, founder and chief executive of Nucleus Genomics, said in a statement. 'One file containing DNA and genetic markers can tell you more about your baby's future than any other test a doctor could possibly run at this stage.' 4 Supporters say screening could prevent chronic illness, but critics warn it may fuel stigma and inequality. New Africa – What is IVF? The popular fertility treatment involves removing eggs from a woman's ovaries and fertilizing them with sperm in a lab. The resulting embryo — which could be frozen or fresh — is placed into the uterus, where it hopefully implants in the uterine wall and sparks a pregnancy. Before implantation, many IVF clinics already screen embryos for genetic abnormalities — such as extra chromosomes or gene mutations — that can lead to failed implantations, miscarriages, birth defects or inherited disorders. But the first-of-its-kind service from Nucleus Genomics takes things a step further. Build-a-baby The company just launched Nucleus Embryo, a new software platform that lets potential parents dig deep into the full genetic blueprint of their embryos before choosing which one to implant. 4 The number of Americans using IVF has skyrocketed over the last decade. – The tool lets IVF patients compare the DNA of up to 20 embryos, screening them for more than 900 conditions — including Alzheimer's, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and several forms of cancer. It doesn't stop there. The program also flags potential mental health conditions like depression and schizophrenia and even ranks cognitive traits like IQ. Parents can also get a look at cosmetic and physical features, from height, baldness and BMI to eye and hair color. The company isn't promising perfection. Instead, the software generates a so-called polygenic risk score that will give parents the probability of how likely it is an embryo might develop certain traits or diseases. 4 Many IVF clinics already screen for certain genetic risk factors, like an abnormal number of chromosomes. Charlize Davids/ – Ultimately, it's up to the parents to decide which qualities matter most to them. For those looking to decode the results, genetic counseling sessions are available. 'Lifespan has dramatically increased in the last 150 years,' Sadeghi told the Wall Street Journal. 'DNA testing to predict and reduce chronic disease can make it happen again.' A new era of reproductive tech The practice, known as polygenic embryo screening, is already highly controversial in the medical world, according to a report published by Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center. Critics warn that allowing parents to screen embryos for risks like depression or diabetes could deepen stigma and discrimination against people living with those conditions. Meanwhile, disability advocates argue it promotes the harmful idea that disability is something to be fixed, not a natural part of human diversity. And when it comes to choosing embryos for traits like intelligence or athleticism, critics say we're sliding into designer baby territory — a modern form of eugenics that favors the rich, reinforcing social and healthcare inequalities. 4 Few Americans approve of using the technology to predict traits unrelated to disease. Gemyful – Still, the public appears open to some aspects of the tech. A 2023 survey found that 77% of Americans support using it to screen embryos for the likelihood of developing certain physical conditions, while 72% back screening for mental health risks. Proponents argue it's no different from vaccination — a preventive tool, not a judgment on those with the condition. But when it comes to non-medical traits, support drops fast: only 36% back screening embryos for behavioral traits and just 30% for physical features like height or eye color.
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."
CBS News
33 minutes ago
- CBS News
FDA food inspector vacancies near 20% after Trump hiring freeze
Nearly 1 in 5 positions across the Food and Drug Administration's human food inspection divisions are now vacant, multiple agency officials tell CBS News, in the wake of departures encouraged by the Trump administration's cost-cutting efforts and a government-wide hiring freeze that had stalled efforts to replenish their ranks. While the FDA has long struggled with hiring and retaining qualified investigators to inspect food producers and distributors, multiple federal health officials — who spoke on the condition of anonymity and were not authorized to speak to the press — say that the staffing gap has worsened due to early retirements and resignations. "The FDA remains fully capable of fulfilling its public health mission to protect the safety of the American people. Under Commissioner Makary's leadership, the agency continues to meet its inspection obligations, ensuring that all facilities are reviewed within mandated timeframes," Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, told CBS News. FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary has claimed in interviews that no inspectors were laid off at the agency as a result of the sweeping restructuring ordered by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that began in April, but has not acknowledged the retirements and resignations. And despite Makary's statements, multiple FDA officials said they are worried about worsening attrition in the agency's ranks of investigators. "They're not going to admit our mission is at risk and we're missing timeframes, even though I've heard that's happening," a current FDA official told CBS News in a message. A separate current FDA official and one former official said that close to 20% of investigational positions are vacant across the agency's human foods inspectorate. "Since 2017, our ability to fulfill its public health mission is increasingly constrained by reduced inspectional capacity. We continue to face significant obstacles in recruiting and retaining qualified investigators, particularly in the foods program, where nearly 90 investigative positions remain vacant," the agency said last month in response to a draft of a report by the HHS inspector general. The inspector general had concluded that the FDA would need to increase inspections by more than 3,000 each year, in order to meet its goals. Under requirements laid out by Congress, the FDA is required to inspect food facilities at specific intervals, benchmarks that government watchdogs have long faulted the agency for falling short of. "For FDA to meet the inspection timeframes moving forward, it would need to inspect approximately 7,000 high-risk facilities each year. However, FDA inspected only about 58 percent of that amount," the inspector general's June 2025 report said. Around 40% of investigator positions are vacant for the group of investigators tasked with inspecting "critical foods" like infant formula plants, a current official said. "Critical foods has had difficulty with staffing because every inspection is high profile and the team is traveling more often than not. It isn't sustainable for everyone," a former FDA official said. The job of an FDA investigator has gotten harder in recent months, as the Trump administration imposed additional hurdles to make small purchases necessary for their work, ranging from buying everyday supplies to shipping samples, officials said. "The reality is that the extra steps in budget approval processes have caused inspections to be delayed, and investigators have had to take on administrative tasks that eat into their time being productive. Everything was taking longer," the former FDA official said. Many administrative staff and laboratory scientists supporting the FDA's food inspectors were also eliminated through layoffs, resulting in backlogs of testing and reimbursements. Some have since been reinstated by the agency. One current and one former FDA official said the agency also had many investigators that were in the process of being hired months ago, before attempts to fill the slots were blocked by an order signed by President Trump that now extends through July 15. Multiple officials said Friday morning they were hopeful that the Trump administration might grant an exemption to the hiring freeze after weeks of lobbying by officials within the agency. On Friday afternoon, after HHS responded to a CBS News request for comment about this story, the FDA published its first new hiring announcement for food investigators in months, among a handful of new job postings. "This position is being filled under a stream-lined hiring authority," the job posting reads.
