Tobacco Documents Online

. . .......... . ..... . ............. ..... . ......

Report Bulletin 26 May 12, 1980 Smoking in the Workplace Smokers have always assumed that they have the right to light up when and whuethey please. But in the past few years nonsmokers have been increasingly as- terting their right to breathe clean air. In addition, more and more studies are showing the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking to both smokers and non- smokers, especially in combination with other toxic substances. The smoking controversy becomes your company's problem when employees who are sensitive to smoke ask for relief from the smoke-filled atmosphere. What can you do to keep both groups of employees happy? At NEW IDEAS ¶ 226 you'll find out about what other companies are doing to solve the problem, the results of two nationwide surveys on company smoking policies, and some programs you can offer employees. EEOC, Courts Turn Attentiori to Comparable Worth 126.1 Are certain jobs low-paying because they ie held mainly by women and minorities? Are these jobs really of as much value to a company as other, higber-paying jobs? If so, what can EEOC do about it? These are the central questions that almost 60 witnesses from business, labor, the women's movement, ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Summer bonus: altered~workweeks ...................................... 1262 ASPA '80 conference program ......................................... 126.3 Urban family budgets up in 1979 ........................................ 126.4 Career development for clerical workers ................................. ~126.5 Seminar on individual rights in the corp ................................... 126.6 Proposed regs for medical reimbursement ................................ 126.7 ASPA's new Washington address ....................................... 1126.8 Matching grants for public radio, tv ..... ................................ Q 263 Demand for technical people stays high ................................. 126.10 A burning issue: smoking in the workplace ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. 1226 PoTieiea .nd Pnetim (USPS 47&-660) published by Prv,tieeHdl, Ine..SyN'an A.e, Englevood QiXy NJ 07631 Subsciption rrte 5246 per yr. Sesond Class poauRe paid at FsrJerood, NJ© Copyright 1980 by PrrntisH.ll,~ Address changes: Prrvtice-Hall, Ine.. Subscription Service Center, Englewood Cliffs, N&,3 07632 . , .. .._ . .. . , .. W Person(-, I Manaaement- Policies and Practice

451 Dangers of Smoking in the Workplace -' A report on smoking and health released by the Surgeon Gen- eral points out some major hazards to the health of workers who smoke, particularly in an industrial environment. The report iden- tifies the following six different ways smoking may interact with physical and chemical agents in the workplace to create hazards. (The report indicates these factors aren"t mutually exclusive; sev- eral may occur at the same time.) (1) Tobacco products may serve as vectors (carriers) by becoming. contaminated with toxic agents found in the workplace, increasing potential exposure through breathing, eating, and/or the skin. (2) Smoking may transform workplace chemicals into more harmful agents. (3) Cer- tain toxic agents in tobacco products and/or smoke also occur in the workplace, increasing workers' exposure to the agent. (4) Smoking may add to the: biological effectcaused by certain toxic agents. (5) Smoking may interact with toxic agents already in the workplace to cause a more profound effect than that anticipated simply from the separate influences of the agent and smoking added together. (6) Smoking may contribute to accidents in the workplace. The report adds that exposure to more than one phys- ical and/or chemical agent in the workplace can compound any of these interactions. The report also notes that only limited infor- mation regarding the health effects of exposure to smoke on non- smokers is available. Research on such "involuntary smoking," especially as it affects high risk groups (children, persons with certain chronic disorders), is recommended. the smoking issue was incorporated in the larger picture of union rights in employee health issues. Three cases have gone to arbitration. Two of them - upheld the company's right to impose the no-smoking rule and to require a statement from new employees. In the third case, the arbitrator upheld those . rights but also required the company to provide a smoking area for present . . employees who smoke. That decision is currently being appealed. -. 39,TOTAI BAN BANNED-r In light of strong medical evidence, can an asbcstos product manufacturer ban all smoking on company premises? No, said arbitratorEliRock in the case of Nicolet Industries [12-1-78]. Having already instituted protective measures to control the asbestos level in the plant, Nicolet wanted to institute a no-smoking rule to further help protect the health of its employees. But the company had always allowed smoking on the job, and the union was afraid that some long-term employees wouldn't be able to break the habit. The arbitrator ruled that the company couldn't im- pose a flat no-smoking ban. Admitting the importance of the health issue, be said that the new rule wouldn't help as much as the company said, because heavy smokers would continue to smoke off the job. Because violation of the ban would lead to discharge, Rock deemed the rule "unreasonable." He ad- d viscd the company to try setting up segregated smoking areas for use during designated smoking breaks. That would greatly reduce the amount of smok- ing and eliminate it completely in work areas, lessening the health risk. p tYrGNII.c.fn-5«C,o..W.,.nc.T.W.lo,buste...lopm.nu " - 5226

452 . New Ideas6-12-80 Special rules for special industries. Whether or not employees are allowed to smoke may depend on the kind of industry they're working in. What's good for a factory manufacturing asbestos products may not be right for an office supplies firm. Warehouse workers don't usually need to conform to the same public contact standards that retail clerks do. Here are some differences we found in smoking rules in various industries; . • In jacrorim smoking is usually prohibited for reasons of safety and/or product purity. Manufacturers and processors of food products are especially strictS Smoking is allowed'at one company only at certain times in specified ar- 'eas: smoking rooms, lounges, locker rooms, cafeterias during lunclt hour; lavato- ries, triaintenance shop, and boilerr room. At another, smoking is not permitted in the plant, except in designated areas. Restricted areas include all food produc- 'tion, paper conversion, and raw-material and finished-goods storage areas. 1~ Insurance eampanies, banlcr% retail storex and other customer-dependent in- dustries often ban smoking in all public contact areas. Examples: (1) Smoking permitted only in private offices, cafeteria; and meeting rooms. (2) Smoking not allowed in the lobby, restrooms, hallways: elevators, no-smoking area of the caf- eteria, or anyother area where a "no-smoking" sign is posted. (3) Smoking only at desks and in lounge; no smoking in cafeteria, restrooms, balls, elevators. (4) °Ia consideration of customers and fellow workers," no smoking during working hours except in private offices, restrooms, or lunchrooms. At tbediscretion of division managers, smoking may be permitted if it doesn't interfere with opera- tfons. (5) Smoking at any time in places other than restaurants, cafeteria, lounges, washrooms, and other designated areas may result in discharge. P- Hospita$ for obyjous reasons, are very restrictive of employee smoking. Some prohibit it entirely; others designate certain specified smoking areas: No smoking in the presence of the public or patients or while engaged in hospital business with the public or patients. Smoking is not permitted in certain areas of the hospital for, many reasons, including health and fire safety. Employees may smoke in these areas: cafeteria, coffee shop, lobby, designated work and rest ar- eas, outdoors. But they may not smoke in elevators, rooms with oxygen, pa- tients' rooms, nursing stations, kitchen, storage areas, loading dock, and all ar- eas labeled "no smoking." One hospital adds that cigars are not to be smoked indoors at all. • Guidelines for federal employers The General Services Administration has banned smoking in certain designated areas in all federal buildings. The GSA regulation also provides that: 1. Employees occupying an office may unanimously declare that office a "no smoking" area. • -1~ Supervisors should plan work space so that employees who desire a "no smoking" area can be accommodated. Supervisors should also "strive to main- tain an equitable balance between the rights of nonsmokers and those of smok- ers." (GSA noted that in implementing these plans supervisors would have to eonsiderthings such as efficiency of operation, need for additional space, and the cost of alterations.) '1~ Waiting areas should be divided into "smoking" and "no smoking" areas when size allows. 1~ Adequate noncombustible ashtrays or receptacles should be provided in locations where smoking is permitted.

discomfort to nonsmokers regardless of air circulation. Two lunchrooms have been set aside for nonsmokers, and smoking in the auditorium, classrooms, and elevators has been prohibited- • --.While not banning smoking at individuals' desks, The Travelers reminded em- ployees that smoking at desks is a privilege and should be treated as such."'Re- spect and concern for others will reasonably assure that the privilege should be allowed to continue," a spokesperson said. "While we continue to observe and evaluate medical opinion on the effects of smoking on nonsmokers, it is not our intent, at present, to ban smoking at individuals' desks." - Limiting the source. New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Boston) an- nounced recently that cigarette vending machines would be removed from the home office, and tobacco products would no longer be sold in the NEL store. Also, signs requesting no smoking in the presence of nonsmokers will be placed in"all meeting and conference rooms." Smoking will continue to be permitted, however, where no-smoking signs do nof appear. But smokers are asked to give consideration to the comfort and health of nonsmokers. The company feels that this policy is appropriate, in view of its new insurance policy series, which offers nonsmokers lower rates. •' Tofal smoking ban: No one smokes in'the building or on the grounds of the Austad Company (Sioux Falls, SD}-not the 75 or so employees, not suppliers, not customers. "If the President of the United States came in and lit up," said Oscar Austad, president of the company, "we would expel him immediately." Austad has had a total ban on smoking since the company began, 17 years ago. "We have never permitted anyone to smoke on the premises, including the rest- rooms, coffee rooms, etc. Any employee violating this rule could be fired. It has never been necessary to do so." Austad claims that the general health of em- ployees is excellent, and that the cost for medical coverage for employees is con- siderably below average. a-NO-SMOKING RULE NO PROBLEM4 Apparently the smoking rules have been accepted by the general public, and the overwhelming-majority of employees are very enthusiastic about it, Austad says. He also told -P•H that he gets letters from applicants all over the U.S. who'd be willing to move to Sioux Falls simply to work in a smoke-free environment. " A total smoking ban was instituted by 7ohns-Manville Corp. (Denver) in 1978 when medical research showed that the lungg cancer risk for asbestos workers who smoked was 92 times greater than for those who did not smoke. Tbe ban applies not only to work areas where asbestos iss handled, but also to cafeterias, locker rooms, and offices. Johns-Manville.implemented the ban in two steps: (1) It no longer hires people who smoke for work in facilities where asbestos is han= dled. The company's employment form includes a question on whether or not the applicant smokes. And the bulletin announcing the policy to employees stated that misrepresentation in response to this question is cause for termina- tion. (2) The company set up voluntary, stop-smoking clinics for present employ- ees and their spouses. (The company refunds the clinic linic fee to those who success- fully r:main nonsmokers.) - • The no-smoking policy has also been extended to the.world headquarters building in Denver. Although.employees there don't work with asbestos, they may smoke only in private offices and in one part of the dining room. The stop-g smoking clinic•is available for headquarters personnel also. ." . 30-SMOKERS PROTEST RULINGS-*-. Unionized workers at a number of • Johns-Manville locations have protested the no-smoking rules, a company spokesperson told P-H. In one facility, the protest was dropped. At another,

~ 456 - New Ideas . 5-12-90 blood pressure and weight control programs). Approximately 15% of U.S. busi- nesses have programs to encourage and assist their employees to quit smoking. In addition, one-third of the companies indicated an interest in developing or expanding smoking and health programs for their workers. Another recent study, published by the Administrative Management Society, surveyed 302.companies nationwide. In its survey, only 165 of companies indi- tated that they have an official policy on the rights of smokers and nonsmokers. Smoking is forbidden in all offices at 1.7% of the companies, and in designated areas by 12.3%. Just under 15% of respondents with dining facilities divide them into sraoking and no-smoking sections. According to 53% of the respondents, smoking is not a problem in their company. ; . ,. Court Rulings for Nonsmokers Some smoker-nonsmoker confrontations have gone into the courts. Here are examples: . . .• In a Newlersey case, a state court banned smoking from all work areas of s telephone company office. An employee went to court because she suffered severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (including nose bleeds, corneal abra- sion and erosion, headaches, nausea, and vomiting). The judge ordered the New Jersey Bell office to restrict smoking to the "nonwork area presently used as a lunchroom." I-Ie said there was no necessity to fill the air with toxic tobacco smoke in order to do business, so exposure to smoke could not be considered an occupational hazard that the woman had voluntarily assumed in pursuing a ca- reer as a secretary. The ban wouldn't create a hardship for the company, said the judge, because cigarette smoke isn't a "natural by-product" of the compa- ny's operation [Shimp v. N.J. Bell Telephone Co., 145 N.J. Super. 516. A2d 408]. 0- In another case, an Iowa state court granted unemployment benefits to a woman whose health required that she accept a job only in a smoke-anddust- free environment. She suffered from asthma and had to quit her job because cig- arette smoke where she worked aggravated her condition. When she was unable to find a job that met the conditions required by her health, she applied for un- employment benefits. The Employment Security Commission said. her restric- tions on possible employment had made her unavailable for work and ineligible for benefits. But a District Court in Iowa disagreed, saying her limitation wasn't so great as to remove any possibility of employment, and compared her situa- tion to the many cases where benefits were granted to persons limited to "light work" [Stevens v. Employment Security Commission, DC of Iowa, Polk County, No. CE 6-2934, 11-17-76]. t. Unemployment benefits were also granted to an Idaho worker who had to quit because two cigar smokers were transferred into her work area. She could have been given a leave of absence until a suitable position opened, but no one told her of this option. According to the state industrial commission, her limited cboice "would compel a reasonable person to leave her employment." Thus she bad good cause for quitting and was eligible for benefits [Ellen L. Meyer v. C.P. Cfare & Co., Idaho Industrial Comm.. D.E. 615-78, 11-17-78]. For more on smoking in the workplace, see 111,211. For stop-smoking pro- grams as part of fitness and health, see ¶ 13,260. More on ventilation and air conditioning is at ¶ 13,509 et seq.

6_tx-9o . . . .:1 i.t 449 A Burning Issue: Smoking' in the Workplace _ :,•, , : . . . ..~,:.. ... •.. ~ 1226 Whatever the statistics, one thing seems certain: the smoker vs. non- smoker controversy is ieaf and significant. And it is. probably growing, as more and more states and municipalities enact ordinances prohibiting smoking in pub- ]fc places, often including places of work;..and as more and more nonsmoking employees'become. aware of their rights under these ordinances. How can you avoid a head-on collision betweea.smokers and.nonsmokers in your company, and perhaps offset the push for government action? Here-are some ideas to help Gompany.roiioles on bmoKing Some ~companies' poficies permit smoking throughout the company. Others peimit it except in certain designated areas (usually.for safety reasons). Some extend no-smoking policies to.offices and other work areas, as well as common areas such.as lunchrooms, conference rooms,,and hallways. Here are some exam- p1es: Unwritten smoking rules. - The Chicago Tribune, although it has no written company policy regarding smoking, has taken certain,steps to make sure that the rights and privileges of both smokers and nonsmokers aren't abused. ,,- . Certain rooms and various locations are designated no-smoking areas. . . Lunchrooms are designated for both smoking and nonsmoking personnel, and dearly marked and identified. .:No smoking on elevators. The Tribune's personnel manager, Ronald J. Musil, admits that this problem hasn't been completely resolved. But he notes that "employees have taken a more active role in asking people. to refrain from smoking while in the elevators." .: : . . , . .t :. ' . '. . , . Employees have been informed about the guidelines..And most employees are responsive and seem to "want to be;considerate of the rights and privileges of others,,", says Musil.. • . . . .: . . .. ... . . , . . . In addition, the Tribune has added-new and more efficient ventilating systems throughout the building and in the lunchrooms, and Musif says they will. "con- tinue to monitor and address the concerns that 'might arise regarding both smoking and nonsmoking_guidelines and policies.".;; . . ,-, ... Ne-smoking sections at meetings. All meeting rooms at theNew York City offices: of.Sears Roebuck and Co. have smoking and no-smoking sections. Ac- cording to VSrmfield Fitman, personnel director,_"employees have responded gtatefully to this." Some nonsmokers have asked the company to go further, but it has not done so. Nonsmokers have signs on their desks saying, `•Thank you far not smoking. : - Rules set by departments. Teff Jones, manager of personnel serviccs at the Zale Corporation (Dallas), told P-H thatsmoking rules at Zale vary among~dc pariments and are set by department managers. The only compan-y-wide regula- tions provide for nonsmoking areas in the cafeteria, and no smoking in devators (by aty regulation). : ; .. Response to employee requests.'The,"Your Yew^column~ofdbe employee publication' of The Travelers Insurance Companies (Hartford,' Coon.) received many letters from nonsmokers asking that smoking privileges be limited in some way. The company's response was to limit smoking, where practical, in areas where air movement is minimal, or in confined areas where smoke may cause 10 1t[0MIInerH-S..CrewMf.r.nc.TnENlurbl.nCrvaapmrnn .,. " . - . . ' .II226

......... -.: -~ - c c - - ' 454 .- . ~ New Ideas 6-t 2-80 This help ranges from printing supportive articles in employee publications to sponsoring stop-smoking programs. Here are some examples; • Bonuses to quitters. • A bonus program to encourage employees to stop smoking has been in ef- fect for 13 years at the G.W. Dahl Co., Inc. (Bristol, R.f.). Smokers who want to quit sign one of two alternative pledges: • " P/edge one: "To qualify for a bonus of $2 per week, I promise to quit smoking cigarettes entirely. I also promise not to use any other form of tobacco during work- ing hours, including lunch and coffee breaks." - . Pledge twu• "To qualify for a bonus of $3 per week, I promise to quit smoking entirely." . . Both pledges add: "I promise to report myself immediately in writing to the Pay- roll Department in the event that I break this pledge. I understand that I will not be permitted to sign a new Quitter's Pledge until I have forfeited my bonus for six con- secutive weeks starting with the week in which I break this pledge." '.' And there's a "backslider's declaration" attached to each pledge: "I ruefully declare that I have broken the above pledge for the first time on (date). This pitiful (con- temptible) backslider will not be permitted to sign a new Quitter's Pledge before Sun- day, (date), a waiting period of six weeks." Dahl's records don't go back to 1967, but between 1972 and 1978, 87 em- ployees participated in the program. Of these, 22 have since left the company, and eight signed backslider's declarations. 1• Providing clinic programs. . Sears Roebuck and Company's New York Fashion Buying Office offered employees the five-week Smokenders program. (More recent programs have been offered through the American Health Foundation, which does mini-physicals and intervention programs with Sears employees.) Of the 80 employees who signed up for the Smokenders program, 75 completed the seminar, and 67 of those graduated as nonsmokers. Approximately half the cost was refunded to employees who were still not smoking six months after the end of the pro- gram-64 of the 67 graduates. . . The Sears program was undertaken at the request of employees who wanted some sort of help in giving up smoking. The company felt that it would be good for all employees to reduce smoking, and that reduced smoking might have some impact on absenteeism: While not sure what impact the program may have bad on attendance and productivity, the personnel director told P-H he's "quite sure it had a significant impact on employee good will." Many of the partici- pants took time to write and tell him how great they thought the company was to make the program possible. • A one-time program was offered a few years ago at the Zale Corp. (Dallas). Those who didn't smoke for six months following the Seventh-day Adventist's Five-Day Plan were refunded the fee. - -• In New York City, the New York Institute of Hypnotherapy offers stop- smoking programs at special industry rates. Employees of Consolidated Edison Co. pay their own way, and Con Ed adds an extra: Spouses of employees are also invited to attend the clinics at the reduced rates. • Health organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the Ameri- can Heart Association will offer stop-smoking programs for your employees. A repres_^ntative of ACS said that programs are free, but that scheduling can be a problem. ACS also has a speakers' bureau that companies can use. The program at Miles Laboratories (Elkhart, Ind.), conducted by the corpo- rate training department, was based on the ACS program, with course materials and audiovisuals provided by the Society. As a result of the program, partici-

.. .... .._ _... 5-12-80 - Smoking in the Workplace 455 pants have formed an I Quit Club, open to all who complete the class. It meets regularly to offer help and support in kicking the habit. ll~ Counseling and information. " At the Associate Health Center at J.C. Penney Co., Inc. (New York City), company doctors and nurses provide free counseling and guidance to employees on any and all matters affecting health, including smoking. Employees who feel that a group cessation program is for them are directed to the American Cancer Society. I•.Publicity.. - , . . . Some companies offer encouragement in the form of case studies of co- workers who've "made it," telling how they did it and why. Employee publica- tions carry suggestions on how to stop smoking, and print calls for tolerance and understanding. ."Scare tactics' are being used at J.C. Penney. The company has an elabo- rate bulletin board program, using glass-enclosed boards and changing the dis- play every day. A long series of smoking facts-more than 20-will begin soon. One quick-fact will be given each,day. (For instance: "Did you know that as many Americans are killed by smoking in three-and-a-half years as were killed in all our wars?") The slogan that ties the series together is "Smoking kills, so why do itT" . The New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Boston), while encouraging employees to stop smoking for the sake of their own health, published a plea for understanding, which included the following: . "In our daily relations with others, most of us try not to do things which will o6 fend others. For a smoker, the only way to avoid the risk of offending nonsmokers is to ask if they mind if you smoke. Since not all nonsmokers are bothered by smoke end some will object only under certain conditions, such as in a small, stuffy room, you11 sometimes win and sometimes lose with this approach. But to go ahead and smoke without asking is to risk being thought of as selfish and rude. . "Some smokers find the idea of 'asking permission' to smoke intolerable. Yet these iame people observe the other little courtesies of life with no problem; they would not - open a window, take the last piece of candy, or borrow something without asking. The smoker who finds that having a cigarette is more vital than being courteous to friends and co-workers should perhaps take time to seriously consider how important the smoking habit has become in his or her life. "Nonsmokers, on the other hand, should try to be Besible when a smoker asks to smoke. Consider how uncomfortable you're likely to be, given the conditions of the room and the length of time you'll be there. "No" shouldn't always be your answer vrsle55 smoke really bothers you or you feel your health is endangered by being ex- posed to it." Results of Two Surveys A nationwide survey of top-level rnanagement and medical officials in over 900 U.S. companies, conducted by the National Interagency Council on Smok- ing and Health, revealed that almost 50io of respondents have an official policy on smoking. Cafeteria no-smoking sections have been set up in 18.5% of the companies, with 29 banning all smoking in dining areas. Conference rooms are no-smoking areas in 6.2% of companies, and medical facilities in 14.7%. A ma- jority of companies restrict smoking in blue-collar work areas, primarily due to safety, as well as health, regulations. The NICSH study also found that smoking programs ranked third among health education and health promotion programs sponsored by companies (after V 1N0NlInePPP-S..CrmaAda.nc.T.Cl./orbnead.r.lupments 1226