Campaigners against the legislation to ban smoking in all enclosed public spaces as of summer 2007 argue that this is just another way for the government to control us, deny personal freedom and monitor us like children that will indulge ourselves straight into a graveyard without state intervention. Sarah Fletcher asked leading business figures what this will mean for the employer’s relationship with staff and productivity rates.
As the TUC is urging employers to ban smoking from the workplace ahead of the summer 2007 deadline, the question of personal freedom is again raised. It’s hardly surprising to hear that smoking is unhealthy, is responsible for one fifth of all deaths in the UK and costs the NHS around £1.7 billion per year (Department of Health), but is it really the employer’s place to stop you?
“If it’s not impacting upon their job, then it’s really got nothing to do with the employer,” argues Simon Clarke, director of Forest, the organisation that promotes smokers’ rights. The main problem affecting staff morale, he says, is not the ban on smoking in the office, but the fact that some organisations are preventing employees from smoking anywhere on company grounds – even in the worker’s own car.
Simon Clarke, director, Forest
Staff will resent an employer who bans smoking from the premises or introduces schemes to encourage workers to quit, Clarke claims. This view isn’t unique to Forest – a survey carried out by HealthScotland, Workplace smoking policies in Scotland (2005), reported that many employers felt concern that smoking bans would raise issues of fairness and choice. The more staff think their employer is forcing them to quit, the more likely the scheme is to fail.
However, according to Andrew Wilson, director of research and development at Ashridge Centre for Business and Society, such programmes can promote the business as a caring employer if managed properly. Lucy Hibbert, HR officer of SR Technics UK, part of the world’s largest independent solutions provider of technical aircraft services, launched an NHS advice programme to assist staff that wished to stop smoking. “Reaction has been really positive,” she says. “Some [staff] were a little suspicious at first, asking ‘Why do you want to help?’, but once fully explained they seem really impressed that we’re taking an interest.”
But where does the employer’s duty of care end? Should the business place limits on the quantity and type of food staff can eat on the premises? Should workers be forced to use the stairs rather than the lift? “Unless handled very carefully it’s going to be seen as a draconian measure,” warns Wilson. Preventing employees from smoking on the premises but continuing to allow them to eat cream cakes in the canteen, for example, risks claims of discrimination. Wilson suggests the next stage is to only recruit candidates that don’t smoke. As the government introduces further legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of age, can it really justify discriminating against an individual for smoking?
Productivity
Clarke argues that preventing employees from smoking during working hours will have a negative impact upon productivity. All staff need to take short breaks throughout the day, so is it really so much worse to smoke outside for ten minutes instead of taking a quick rest to send personal emails or talk to friends? “A lot of smokers genuinely believe it helps them to perform and concentrate… A good employer would recognise that having the occasional cigarette break actually enables these people to be more efficient,” he adds.
Jean King, director of tobacco control, Cancer Research UK
Cancer Research UK director of tobacco control Jean King challenges this: “No independent, peer reviewed study has ever found a significant negative economic impact of going smoke free. A review of smoke free laws across Europe, and research conducted prior to Scotland going smoke free, shows that they do not damage profits,” she argues.
This remains a concern for businesses, however. Wetherspoons abandoned an effort to make all of its 657 pubs non-smoking ahead of the summer 2007 deadline after a number of complaints from customers; and given the pre-tax profit figures it reported for the 53 weeks to July 30 this was a sound business move. In Scotland, where a smoking ban has been in operation since March, comparable sales were down just 0.3 per cent but earnings from fruit machines fell by 11.3 per cent. Whether employee productivity is damaged or not, Wetherspoons has suffered financial losses as a result.
Conclusion
Although the employer has a certain degree of duty of care to its staff, it would be difficult to argue a strong business case for banning smoking from anywhere on the premises. Admittedly, if an employee sits at their desk chain-smoking and risking the health of colleagues, this is unacceptable; but although non-smoking employees may not be overjoyed at the prospect of their co-workers taking repeated breaks to smoke, there’s no solid evidence to prove this really damages the morale of other workers. As such, there is not a strong enough business argument to justify banning smoking from all company property and employees that smoke are likely to resent such a policy.
***
Related items:
7 Responses
Points scoring?
OK, I don’t drive either; I cycle to work every day (yes, I wear a helmet; I’m lit up like a christmas tree when it’s dark; I have a bell which I use regularly; I always stop at red lights; I don’t ride the wrong way up one-way streets and I don’t ride on the pavement – before an argument about cyclists starts…); I turn off lights when I’m not in the room; I don’t leave my TV/Computer etc on standby; I recycle about 70% of my household waste; I cook meals from raw/healthy/locally sourced (as much as possible) ingredients etc etc etc. In short, I think about the impact my actions have on others. But the point of this discussion is not about the wider impact of peoples actions on the world as a whole.
The argument is that smoking DOES impact on other people in the work environment and, as another person mentioned, it DOES impact on the image of the business.
Non-Driver
I don’t drive, when I fly I pay to have trees planted to make up for the environmental damage. I also smoke like a chimney and I’m not going to apologise for that to the non-smoking brigade.
Stop polluting the environment with your cars, stop buying fast food and supporting the destruction of people’s waistlines and the destruction of people who work in this industry (particularly behind the scenes – see Fast Food Nation by Eric Shlossler), stop buying branded clothing that supports child slave labour in the third world, stop supporting companies like Nestle with your buying habits.
Then lecture me about smoking – non-smokers are among the most selfish whingers on earth the only thing they care about is themselves, a few are genuinely principled and live a healthy lifestyle with sensible moral implications for the environment and the rest of the world, most of them don’t.
Until you do – there are much bigger problems than smoking in life, problems which can be readily addressed through simple changes in your lives but unfortunately they might inconvenience the non-smoker and everybody knows (because they never shut up about it) how much non-smokers don’t like to be inconvenienced.
Yes smoking kills, but then so do fast food, cars, sports, working, and nobody seems as keen to stop these things. And just for the record – we will all die of something, the smoker probably earlier than others – reducing the huge pension payouts required to keep old aged non-smokers happy…
Smoking Ban
I cannot believe the attitude of some people towards the smoking ban and to compare it to “eating cream cakes” is a joke. Passive smoking affects hundreds of people year in and year out and if we save one live by introducing a smoking ban then it is worth it. We have had the ban here in Scotland since March of this year and it was definitely the best policy ever to be introduced. Research six months down the line has shown that the majority of working people have stated that it has been a success in their working environment, especially the staff of pubs and restaurants etc.
In all of my working years I have never worked in an office environment that allowed smoking outwith break out rooms or canteens. In the Company that I work for now we have introduced a policy whereby we allow staff to take a cigarette break in the morning and then again in the afternoon and during their lunch break they can smoke as much as they like. We have had no complaints at all from any of our staff. We thought non-smokers may have caused a bit of a stir but no, not at all. All in all we in Scotland are now working and living in a much fresher environment and can enjoy going to the pub or restaurant without coming out smelling as if we have just smoked 40 cigarettes in one sitting.
Addiction or arrogance
I managed an office where 8 of the 20 people who worked there smoked. I inherited the practice of these people taking breaks as and when they felt the need, which was on average 8 times a day at 10 minutes each. The other staff who didn’t smoke did not take breaks and were unhappy about the smokers getting preferential treatment. I assess that smoking cost the company £530 a week in breaks (£66.25 per smoker). The most ardent smokers were also off work more often with “colds” and chest infections. None of them could see this was smoking related, but were the only ones coughing and spluttering on a regular basis.
I do see smoking as an addiction, but one that the smokers do not want to seem to break and also agressively defend it. Why?
If smoking had not been invented and we were about to try and launch tobbacco on the market, firstly it would not be legal and secondly no-one knowing the health risks would be interested. There are no benefits to smoking, it does not even relax you, just relives its own addictive effects briefly.
As an addiction, should I also release staff who, every hour, want to take drugs, drink alcohol, or eat cream buns?
The car fumes versus tobacco fumes argue does not stand up to scrutiny. I personally don’t know of any smokers giving up their cars to balance out the fumes they produce from cigarettes.
Groups of people gathered outside buildings smoking really does reduce the professional image of the company and smokers seem to have an arrogance about dropping their stubs, packets and wrappers where ever they see fit.
If smokers want to continue I have no problem with that, I just don’t want them to use time I pay for, make my building a mess or frighten off customers whilst congregating around the door.
On a final note I regularly see people smoking in cars while children are inside with them, this is not a picture of people enjoying what they like whilst not hurting others and is yet another example of the strange arrogance of smokers.
Yawn – Yawn
OK, I’m a smoker and a completely unashamed smoker at that. I completely support a smoke free office environment – as work is not really a choice for people I am happy not to smoke and cause discomfort for non-smokers.
But outside the building, honestly non-smokers please stop your broken record. I have yet to meet a single non-smoker who has vowed to give up their nasty polluting car (remember before unleaded petrol when all those selfless drivers were making morons out of Britain’s children?) – I have no choice but to breathe the filthy sickening fumes from your exhausts as you destroy natural resources, contribute to situations like the war in Iraq (“but it’s my right to drive even if it means the deaths of hundreds of thousands in other countries” – still not convinced by that) and contribute to global warming.
So while you destroy far more than just my lungs, you can stop boring me to death over my smoking.
Motivation is about a lot more than whether colleagues take smok
I cannot believe there is still a debate about this!! I have not worked in an organisation that allows smoking for more than 10 years and while there is occasionally a bit of comment on the number of breaks smokers get, it is far less of an influence on morale than a lot of other management initiatives. Forest can think what they like but nobody has the right to inflict their smoke on others.
What about the rights of non-smokers?
As usual, the pro-smoking lobby is only considering the rights of smokers. They believe they should be able to smoke when and where they please.
What about the rights of the non-smokers? Why should the vast majority of people who don’t smoke be forced to work in an environment that stinks; to walk through the entrance to work in a cloud of smoke and through piles of discarded cigarette butts? It doesn’t make for a pleasant work experience for non-smokers! Trying to communicate with a colleague who has just got back from a smoke break can be difficult when you are forced to hold your breath due to the smell…
The cream cake argument doesn’t wash. If people want to endanger their health by not getting enough exercise or eating rubbish food, that is their choice. The key point of the argument is that cigarette smoke, whether inhaled by the smoker or non-smoker, causes lung cancer.
The fact that someone wants to eat a cream cake during their lunch break at work doesn’t affect my health. Breathing in second hand cigarette smoke does.