Rethinking Workplace Substance Misuse

For many organisations, substance misuse policies are built around a simple principle: test employees, and if they fail, terminate their employment.

It’s neat.

It’s decisive.

It feels like it protects the business.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: it often doesn’t.

In a recent episode of The Alcohol Debate, I spoke with Nick McMurray, co-founder of Positive Matters, about a different approach—one that prioritises safety and humanity. What emerged was a compelling case for why the traditional “test-and-fire” model is not only ineffective, but actively counterproductive.

If organisations genuinely want safer, healthier, and more productive workplaces, it’s time to rethink how we respond to substance misuse.

The Problem with “Test and Fire”

Let’s start with why the dominant model exists.

In safety-critical industries—transport, construction, manufacturing—it’s absolutely right that employees must not be impaired through drink or drugs whilst doing their job. The risks are obvious and potentially catastrophic.

But somewhere along the way, many organisations have reduced their entire strategy to a single outcome: a positive test result equals dismissal.

As Nick puts it:

“There is a strong zero tolerance approach… where it is just this focusing on the outcome… rather than sometimes the causes of what is driving that person to that outcome.”

That distinction—outcome vs cause—is everything.

Because when you focus only on the outcome, you miss the bigger picture:

• Why did this happen?

• Is this a one-off or part of a pattern?

• What’s going on in this person’s life?

• And crucially: what happens next?

People Aren’t Robots

One of the most powerful ideas from our conversation is deceptively simple: employees are human.

“You’re not employing robots… you’re employing humans and people will suffer these things.”

He was talking about life experiences like:

• Bereavement

• Relationship breakdowns

• Financial stress

• Mental health struggles

And when those pressures build, some turn to alcohol or drugs—not because they want to jeopardise their job, but because they don’t know how else to cope.

“It feels sometimes… that might be the only way out for them… it just takes the edge off.”

This is where the “test-and-fire” approach falls apart.

It treats substance misuse as a disciplinary issue, when in reality it is often a coping mechanism for distress.

The Cultural Blind Spot

There’s another layer here that organisations often ignore: culture.

Alcohol, in particular, is deeply embedded in both society and business life.

We celebrate with it.

We commiserate with it.

We bond over it.

As Nick reflected on his early career:

“We celebrate a win… you’re down the pub. We just lost a big customer… go to the pub. Everything just evolved around there.”

And my experience in advertising was much the same.

But this creates a contradiction, which is at the heart of many organisations:

• Alcohol is encouraged (or at least normalised) in social and client settings

• But punished harshly when it crosses an invisible line

Policies often reflect this confusion.

It’s not uncommon to see:

• “Being under the influence is grounds for dismissal”

• Alongside generous alcohol allowances for client entertainment

The message to employees is, at best, mixed, and it is often downright contradictory.

Why Firing People Doesn’t Solve the Problem

Let’s be blunt: dismissing someone for a failed test doesn’t fix the underlying issue.

Nick is clear on this:

“By just sacking them, I don’t think you’re necessarily addressing that safety issue… you’ve just shifted the problem onto another employer.”

That’s a hard truth.

All you’ve done is:

• Removed the problem from your organisation

• Transferred it elsewhere

• Left the individual unsupported

And in some industries, where jobs are plentiful, dismissal isn’t even a deterrent:

“It’s more of an inconvenience… I’ve lost my job on Monday, by Wednesday I’ll be somewhere else.”

So the risk doesn’t disappear—it just moves.

The Business Case for Compassion

There’s also a strong commercial argument for doing things differently.

Replacing an employee is expensive:

• Recruitment costs

• Training time

• Lost productivity

• Disruption to teams

• Reputational damage / gossip

Estimates often put the cost of replacement in the tens of thousands.

Now compare that to the cost of supporting someone through a difficult period. As Nick highlights, a small investment in support can deliver:

• Retained expertise

• Faster recovery

• Greater loyalty

And that loyalty matters. When employees feel genuinely supported, they don’t just stay—they advocate for the organisation, defend it, and contribute more fully. And they are on the look-out for others in the organisation who might need support through difficult challenges.

A Better Model: Prevention, Clarity and Support

So what does a more effective approach look like?

Nick and his team at Positive Matters build their work around four key pillars:

1. Clear, Tailored Policies

No more generic, copy-and-paste documents. Policies need to reflect:

• The specific risks of the organisation

• Its culture

• Its appetite for support

• What is affordable

And they need to be understandable.

“We’ve seen ones that are really long-winded… and others that are basically a Post-it note.”

Clarity is non-negotiable.

2. Practical Training for Managers

Policies don’t implement themselves—people do. Managers need to know:

• What signs to look for

• How to have difficult conversations

• What steps to take

• Where to access support

Without this, issues get ignored or mishandled.

“People don’t initiate it because they just feel like… I don’t really want to have that conversation.”

Training removes that barrier.

3. Intelligent Use of Testing

Testing still has a role—but not as a blunt instrument. Instead, it should be:

• A safety tool

• A diagnostic tool

• A way to assess whether the wider strategy is working

“If you’re getting a lot of positives… that probably indicates there’s a problem somewhere, probably upstream.”

Testing should inform action—not automatically trigger dismissal.

4. Meaningful Support

This is where the real shift happens.

Support isn’t a tick-box exercise—it’s the core of an effective strategy. Nick describes two key types:

a) Support for Dependency

Employees who recognise they have a problem can access structured support, including behavioural change programmes and pathways into longer-term help. Crucially, this is integrated with the workplace:

• The employer is involved

• Progress is monitored

• Reintegration is supported

• Employees are praised for asking for help rather than vilified for needing it

b) Support for One-Off Incidents

Not every failed test indicates dependency. Sometimes it’s a one-off lapse during a difficult period. Instead of dismissal, Positive Matters offers:

• A structured intervention

• Education on risks and behaviour

• Follow-up testing

• A pathway back to work

As Nick explains:

“Is sacking someone really going to help them in the wider scheme of things? I would argue no.”

Accountability Still Matters

Let’s be clear: a compassionate approach is not a soft approach. Safety remains paramount. Employees are still:

• Stood down if impaired

• Held accountable for their actions

• Expected to engage with support

As Nick emphasises:

“There has to be some personal responsibility… they still have accountability within that.”

Compassion doesn’t remove standards—it makes them more effective.

The Opportunity for Employers

Employers are in a uniquely powerful position. They have:

• Regular contact with individuals

• Influence over culture

• The ability to provide early intervention

“Employers have a fantastic opportunity to engage… and say, we do appreciate you are human.”

Handled well, this creates:

• Safer workplaces

• Healthier employees

• Stronger cultures

Handled badly, it creates fear, silence, and hidden risk.

A Shift That’s Already Starting

The good news? Some organisations are already moving in this direction. As Nick shared:

“We’ve had organisations say… we just want to be known as the best employer. Show us what the gold standard looks like.”

That mindset shift—from compliance to care—is where real change happens.

Final Thoughts: Safety Through Humanity

If your goal is safety, you have two choices:

1. Punish the outcome

2. Address the cause

Only one of those actually reduces risk in the long term.

The “test-and-fire” model might feel decisive, but it’s often superficial. It removes the symptom, not the problem.

A compassionate, structured approach—one that combines prevention, clarity, accountability and support—does something far more powerful:

It changes behaviour.

And that’s what creates genuinely safe workplaces.