Clearing the air - enforcing no smoking policies in the work place - includes related article - Special Report

HR Magazine, Feb, 1993 by Jeffrey S. Harris

Sound policies that address key issues have helped leading-edge companies become smoke free.

The number of companies restricting smoking in the workplace has risen from 16 percent in 1980 to 60 percent in 1991. The number banning smoking on their premises rose from 14 percent in 1988 to 25 percent in 1989. While 38 percent of these companies ban smoking in buildings, an additional 30 percent ban smoking in open work areas.(1)

The reasons given by employers for restricting smoking at the work site have evolved over the last decade as health impact data has accumulated and as social norms and regulations have changed. In the late 1970s, the limited number of employers who restricted smoking on the job cited safety, productivity and protection of equipment as their motivating factors.(2) In 1987, almost 27 percent of companies surveyed by the Office of Smoking and Health of the U.S. Surgeon General had a restrictive smoking policy, implemented to protect the health of their employees or to comply with government regulations.(3)

The Tobacco Institute has recommended "common courtesy," having smokers ask if others mind if they smoke, as a solution to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure. However, data from the National Health Interview Survey suggests that almost half of smokers do not ask, and only 4 percent of nonsmokers ask that smokers stop.(4) The evidence is now clear that passive smoke exposure is harmful to the health of nonsmokers.(5)

It seems logical, therefore, from a public health and product quality standpoint, to restrict or ban the release of tobacco combustion products in the work site. However, those considering a work-site smoking ban are concerned about employee relations problems, possible legal actions, morale, productivity and the possible loss of valuable employees.

Two-step approach

In policy changes such as this, the process is critical. There are several issues involved. To help employers succeed in creating a smoke-free workplace, I undertook a study to seek some strategies and tactics that worked. We used a two-pronged approach to assist employers who were considering becoming smoke free.

First, we surveyed the latest available literature on the effects of passive smoke exposure to provide data for management and employee deliberations and presentations. Data presented by an outside source provides an outside perspective and may be perceived as more neutral and credible.

Second, to determine the most effective plan of action and to provide information on other companies' smoke-free status, we surveyed more than a dozen organizations in a number of industries in 1989 and again in 1991, using a structured questionnaire with open-ended elaboration. We asked about any labor-management difficulties encountered, about smoking prevalence before and after policy implementation and about any effects the employees' smoking prevalence had on their dependents. We determined the key human resource management issues faced at each company and reviewed how they were resolved. The 1991 survey was intended primarily to determine if any elements of the policy had to be retracted or implementation slowed, to collect further prevalence data and to determine, in retrospect, what the key success factors in policy implementation had been.

We were able to locate companies that had successfully become smoke free in the telecommunications sector, banking, health-care delivery and service industries. We also contacted several pharmaceutical and medical supply companies. During the first survey, most of these firms had restricted smoking to designated areas. By the second survey in 1991, most had become smoke free.

The key HRM issues identified by many of the companies in the survey encompass the key concerns of managers who are considering the benefits and costs of a smoke-free policy. We have included the "best options," or benchmarks for HRM, identified in retrospect by many of the respondents.

Management support

Top management support is a critical element to make it clear that management is seriously committed to the health of all employees. At Federal Express, for example, the smoke-free policy and communications about it were signed by the CEO, Fred Smith. At GTE Northwest, Lynn McCarthy, director, Health and Safety, obtained approval for a smoke-free workplace from the company's top decision makers. At Northern Telecom Inc. (NTI), a target date for company-wide compliance was announced in a letter from the president.

It became clear in the 1991 survey that the level of top management support was directly correlated with the speed at which the organization became smoke free and whether the step from restricted areas to a total smoke-free workplace could be taken. For example, Roy Vagelos, the CEO of Merck and a physician, strongly supported the smoke-free effort. The program, therefore, proceeded through extensive negotiations in a heavily unionized environment. Employee surveys also indicated strong support.