Tobacco Documents Online

policy and implementation plan to deal with them to management in three months. In others, management may decide that smoking is a serious health hazard to its employees and that smoking is to be eliminated in 12 months. This organization's charge to employees might be to: review how other companies have successfully moved to a smoke free workplace and present your recommendations for steps our company should undertake during the next 12 months to make that transition both smooth and as painless for smokers as possible. But if employees are to be involved, it is important that _heir contributions have meaning and be listeneded to objectively by management. When tracing the history of smoking policies in organizations, it is not unusual to find that the initial push to limit or eliminate smoking came not from management, but from the employees, themselves. At UNUM Life Insurance Company, employees' complaints, coupled with a Maine law requiring employers to reduce smoking, resulted in the company-wide ban. Pacific Northwest Bell emphasizes that no company officer or executive advocated its move to implement a smoking policy. Rather, the impetus came from employees. A grass roots group conducted a survey of workers and eventually recommended that PNW Bell ban smoking. The Employee Advisory 142

CHAPTER 10 NO SMOKING POLICIES AT THE WORKSITE A Look at What Companies Are Doing Today By Ruth Behrens Washington Business Group on 8ealth+ The number of businesses with smoking polices has burgeoned. A national, predictive survey released in 1987 by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that 27.2 percent of all U.S. companies with 50 or more employees have a formal smoking policy. Of these, 40.4 percent report the policy is in place to protect nonsmokers; 39.5 percent report the policy is designed to comply with regulations; 12.7 percent report a need to protect equipment; and 7.4 percent advise that the policy is designed to protect employees at high risk for health problems.1 A more recent study, that looked only at large and medium-sized companies, the 42nd annual Northwestern University Lindquist- Endicott Report, found that 70 percent have restricted, or are prepared to limit, smoking inthe workplace. The study was released in early 1988.I' The development and implementation of a no smoking policy within a business is a multi-faceted process. Experiences of the growing number of companies that have developed written statements spelling out how smoking will be limited or prohibited illustrates vividly ~ 135 G0 O m tj (Z N

timber company with 15,000 employees, does not hire smokers in any of its plants or in corporate offices "because of the medical costs, absenteeism, environment of smoke in the workplace, the fire problems in the mills, and lung cancer."2 The vast majority of companies still do not require that new employees be nonsmokers. But many companies with strict bans are seeing fewer smokers apply. "Why would a smoker want to.work for us," one company spokesman said, "when we deprive him of his habit for eight hours every workday?" Benefits of No Smoking Policies Developing and implementing a worksite no smoking policy is not easy and may cause a great deal of discomfort for smokers and management alike. So why do companies do it? what benefits do they receive? In a recent national survey of all types of worksites with 50 or more employees, the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, asked those with smoking programs what benefits they perceived. 0 41 percent said smoking control policies and programs improved employees' health; 0 16 percent said they increased employees' productivity; 0 9 percent said they improved morale, and 0 8 percent said smoking control activities reduced costs.1 ~ ~ m 140 O W W

its facilities. Clearly, the trend is moving toward more and more companies banning smoking or severely limiting it. Most require that all visitors abide by the company's regulations. Some will not allow smoking on company property, including grounds and parking lots. Groups like Michigan Bell, which has a large number of motor vehicles, are expanding their bans to all company-owned vehicles. However, others are voiding a ban in company cars and trucks because they believe enforcement will be virtually impossible. A few companies have gone even further, and may be bellwethers for a future tend. These companies require that all new employees sign a statement that they are nonsmokers, even on their own time. Company policies prohibiting the hiring of smokers got nationwide publicity when Acoustical Products Company, a subsidiary of Chicago-based US Gypsum Corporation, announced that because of exposures to fibers that could have adverse health effects, all present workers were required to quit smoking or face termination, and in the future, only nonsmokers would be hired. The Non-Smokers Inn in Dallas, Texas, provides only nonsmoking rooms and hires only individuals who do not smoke. At Cardinal Industries, Columbus, Ohio, new employees must state on the application form whether or not they smoke, and only nonsmokers will be hiredt but the company does not make any effort to check or test to find fibbers. Louisiana Pacific Corporation, a Portland, Oreqon-based national ~ ~ 139 ~ O ~ W 07 GI)

Council at Cardinal Industries' Sanford, Florida, plant initiated the idea of a tough no smoking stand. (See "Case Studies--cardinal Industries and Pacific Northwest Bell") At Holiday Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, a task force of employees developed a Clean Air Policy covering its headquarters offices. The task force was originally set up as a Wellness Committee a full year before work began on the smoking policy. The employee group researched various aspects of the smoking problem by gathering research, talking to other companies that had already done it, and working with the local cancer society and lung association. A survey was conducted of all employees to identify their habits and attitudes related to smoking. The Task Force, itself, created the phased-in process that resulted in Holiday Corporation headquarters and several of its subsidiary groups going smoke free January 1, 1987. But the act of involving employees is not always as easy as it might seem, according to Charles Nielson of Texas Instruments. It is important to involve employees in the process of developing a policy as early as possible, and a survey of their habits and attitudes provides invaluable data to management, says Nielson. But because TI has so many locations, timing of an employee survey was sometimes very difficultt in some locations, the policy had already been set by corporate headquarters before the attitude survey could be conducted. As a result, some employees felt they 143

In many ways, the fact that the chief executive at Sanford was a smoker aided in convincing employees that the plant was serious. The announcement that only nonsmokers would be hired and that there would be no exceptions to the rule--even ths president--helped overcome one of company0s biggest obstacles to successful implementation ... convincing employees that the company is serious about the ban. A second advantage Cardinal has going for it in terms of enforcement is a highly desirable work environment. It pays top benefits and offers excellent working conditions. An employee must balance sacrificing his/her smoking habit for eight hours each day with sacrificing a job at Cardinal. So far, Cardinal has won every time. Not only has no one quit, but the ban has not even been tested. "They know we are serious, and if they test us, they must be willing to live with the consequences." Management also believes that the long-standing positive environment among employees and management has contributed to the easy transition. Lducatioa During the 12 months between the announcement and the implementation, various company-paid educational programs and cessation classes were offered. In addition to regular stop smoking seminars provided after business hours, employees and their families also were offered a hypnosis program, and for those who felt they were addicted to smoking, an intensive two-day, off-site 153

would sue the union--and probably win. (See "Case Studies: Pacific Northwest Bell.") In late 1985, the Workplace Health Fund, in cooperation with the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, (US DHHS), held a conference of union people to discuss the merits and value of health promotion. One of the outcomes of the meeting was a set of criteria for union involvement in worksite wellness efforts. Among the recommendations were two that placed heavy emphasis on the need to have a good working relationship between the union and management before attempting to implement any kind of wellness program. "Worksites in which labor and management are not cooperating to bring health and safety hazards under control should not be sites for health promotion activities." In addition, "where the worksite is not under control or the employer is uncooperative, and where the union has established the need for health promotion, the programs should be conducted outside the worksite."4 But for any unionized company considering a smoking policy, the first step must be to look carefully at its union contracts, particularly for any wording that might guarantee members the right to smoke. If such agreements exist, the likelihood of the union supporting a no smoking policy is slim. Sue Pisha, area director of the northwest region of the 145

necessary, termination. But all agree, termination is not the objective. Everything possible should be done to encourage employees to comply, and most feel that peer pressure is the best policing mechanism. However, when an employee continues to break the rules, he or she must be disciplined appropriately, or the entire policy will crumble. (See "Case Studies.") C718E STUDIES Following are case studies illustrating how four widely different companies approached the development and implementation of a policy to reduce or eliminate smoking within their organizations. GIRDIN7IL INDIISTAIES, INC. A total ban on smoking on any company property exists; all new employees must attest to being nonsmokers. Beginning January 1, 1987, the 8,650 employees of Cardinal Industries were assured of a totally smoke free work environment. 150

Some companies have conducted evaluations of the results from their smoking control efforts. Several of these studies, along with some anecdotal findings, are reported in this chapter's Appendix, "The Economic Justification for No Smoking Policies." To many companies, a reduction in the number or percent of employees who smoke is benefit enough from a policy. Smokers dropped from 21 percent of the workforce to 16 percent in two years at UNUM Life Insurance Company. In addition, 87 percent of the smokers reported they were smoking less after the policy was implemented.3 At Pacific Northwest Bell, smokers dropped from 28 percent at the time the ban was implemented to just 20 percent of employees two years later. Emolovee Involvement some companies, especially those wanting quick results that can be controlled, develop smoking policies at the top executive or management level and announce them to the employees. But a more frequently seen pattenr today involves employees in the process of formulating and implementing a policy from the outset--but with varying degrees of direction from management. In some companies, the involvement takes the form of responding to a charge, such as: examine the issues and problems related to smoking at our worksite and present your recommendations for a W %I 141 m O W C.: W 0

sections of cafeterias, laboratories, rooms with delicate equipments, etc. In many instances, these restrictions were imposed because of laws or ordinances requiring them or to protect property. Before the 1980s, they were seldom implemented for health reasons. The assumption was, of course, the entire company is considered a 8moking Permitted area unless otherwise specified. Another type of policy began appearing with regularity in the mid and late 1980s. It banned smoking throughout the company except in designated areas. While many of these policies did not necessarily put greater limits on smoking--often allowing offices and work areas, special lounges, large parts of the cafeterias, etc, to be designated as Smoking Permitted areas, they did set the precedent that the company is Smoke Free except in specified areas. While the difference between these two types of policies may seem subtle at first glance, there is a strikingly different corporate philosophy underlying the two approaches. And in the late 1980s, it was this latter approach--establishing a smoke free company, possibly with a few, carefully selected areas that permit smoking- -that appeared to be setting the pattern for worksite smoking policies. According to a spokesperson for Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI), determining what approach to take in limiting smoking was the most 137