By Annie Hayes, HRZone Editor

Anti-smoking sentiment is growing in the UK as bans roll-out across the EU and cries to protect workers health gathers more support; Editor’s Comment looks at the arguments and assesses the potential impact for employers.

Smokers this year might be forced to stick to their New Year’s resolutions for giving up if anti-smoking lobbyists get their way.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a campaigning public health charity.

They are calling on Health Secretary Dr John Reid to include smokefree legislation in the forthcoming White Paper on Public Health and have taken the lead from the Irish Smokefree model.

They say that after six months of the new law in Ireland they have achieved over 90% compliance and there has been no major impact of the law on the economy, alcohol sales were already declining they say before the smoking ban came into effect.

David Taylor MP said: “Ireland has shown that going smokefree is achievable and popular. But more importantly it is the only way of ensuring that employees are protected from the proven hazards of second hand smoke. Half-way measures such as partial smoking restrictions are simply not adequate to guarantee health protection. The UK should adopt similar legislation to reduce the dreadful toll of illness and premature death caused by secondhand smoke at work.”

It certainly seems rather ironic now that when tobacco was first introduced to Europe from the New World at the end of the fifteenth century it was long regarded as having medicinal value. We now know of course that the very opposite is true.

Official statistics from ASH tell us that about 12 million adults in the UK smoke cigarettes. The habit is fairly evenly balanced between the genders with 27% of men and 25% of women confirmed as smokers. Every year around 114,000 smokers in the UK die as a result of smoking.

Bringing these statistics to life is the fact that five times more people are killed by the habit than die as a result of road traffic accidents. Half of all regular cigarette smokers will eventually be killed by smoking.

It is these kind of chilling statistics that are behind the Trades Union Congress (TUC) most recent calls to roll-out a total smoking ban.

Commenting on a US review of research into the health effects of smoking bans published this week, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

“This adds to the mountain of evidence backing a ban on smoking in workplaces in the UK. The research proves that in the towns and cities around the world where smoking has been stubbed out, the positive health effects on workers previously exposed to tobacco smoke are immediate and lasting.

“Every year 700 employees are killed by second-hand smoke in their workplaces. Banishing smoke from our pubs, bars and restaurants would prevent more workers from needlessly suffering a similar fate.”

The TUC was commenting on a review of research published by Luke Clancy, Director General of the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society. When looking at places where smoke free laws had been introduced, the research suggests that smoking bans have had an immediate and positive effect on exposure to second-hand smoke, nicotine levels, respiratory health and the incidence of heart attacks and heart disease.

So what does this all mean for employers?

Well in most workplaces it is now common place for smoking to be banned, long-gone are the days when workers took a break feet up at the desk and fag in hand.

Smoke-free environments, however, are usually only the demise of the office. When campaigners refer to ‘workplaces’ they are talking in an all-inclusive manner that comprises a very diverse range of circumstances, not only factories and offices, but also shops, public and government buildings, schools, bars, restaurants, prisons, hospitals, residential care and public transport to name a few.

It is in these very public places particularly the hospitality sector where the issue is of paramount importance where bar workers, chefs, waiting staff and managers encounter customer smoke in a passive manner.

The conflict is clear and a battle has begun between those who regard it as their right to smoke and those who believe they are entitled to breathe clean air while in the workplace.

The concern much touted by employers is that a total smoking ban will cost businesses. Campaigners, however, disagree and go as far as to say the opposite is true.

Ben Willmott, employee relations adviser at professional body the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) told HRZone:

“The writing is on the wall for smoking at work. If there was a total ban there wouldn’t be much impact because I don’t think people are going to stay at home or not go out because they can’t smoke. In 2000 27% of adults aged 16 and over in Great Britain smoked cigarettes compared to 40% in 1978. I think smokers as an economic group aren’t as strong as they used to be and of that group there will be a large group that will want to give up.”

ASH also say that far from costing businesses a smoking ban would actually save employers money. They say that US Government estimates show that good air quality can raise productivity by around 3%, while a Canadian study showed the following costs to employers arising from smoking:

• Increased absenteeism – 230 US dollars




• Decreased productivity – 2,175 US dollars




• Increased life insurance – 75 US dollars




• Smoking area costs – 85 US dollars

Certainly this view of the impact on productivity is shared by Barry Rees, Director of People Programmes Ltd who also points out problems associated with business image:

“The first issue is, where do the smokers go? One already sees little clusters of people standing outside the front doors of premises getting their fix. Employers need to consider the reputational issues for their company of such an image to visitors to the building, and members of the public.

“The second, and potentially a much bigger issue, is time. As smokers take time out to have a smoking break there is a clear impact on productivity, particularly compared to those that don’t smoke. I believe employers will need to start having policies regarding smoke breaks (how long there are, can they only replace a tea break etc), if they wish to keep productivity up. Failure to have such a policy may also alienate the rest of their workforce who feel they are working harder than their smoking colleagues.”

Employers might also be faced with discrimination claims if asthmatics or those with respiratory illnesses are prevented from applying to certain positions because smoking risks their health.

Smoking supporters might say that rolling-out a smoking ban is further evidence that Britain is in the grips of a ‘nanny-state’ but with statistics like these it would appear to be against the very essence of human rights not to implement a total smoking ban, after all every person has the right to breathe clean air and this should come before the right to light-up.

Many also might argue that if smoking is to be banned then it follows that alcohol should do so after all there is always the risks to others from drink-drivers and violent drunks.

Commenting on this argument Ian Willmore of ASH told HRZone:

“There is no such thing as passive drinking. Essentially you can’t damage anyone else if you drink alcohol, provided of course you don’t operate machinery under the influence of alcohol or drink drive.”

Time will tell whether a smoking ban will arise in the UK and follow the examples set by Ireland, parts of America, Norway and the Netherlands it might be wise for Labour to postpone such a decision until they are in office but with figures showing that smoking is in decline it could actually be a vote-swinger.

HRZone invites you to add your views. Do you think Britain should roll-out a total smoking ban? Would it harm your business? Tell us your views and share your thoughts with other members.