Workplace smoking bans: Do the pros outweigh the cons?
September 3, 2009 by Jared BilskiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter - benefits, Latest News & Views, Management, policies
Is a smoking ban on company grounds really an effective tactic? And is it worth the employee backlash?
According to a recent study by the Journal of Tobacco Policy & Research, that all depends on how far you are willing to go to help employees stay smoke-free.
The study did find that smokers take more sick days than their non-smoking co-workers.
It also found that even if a smoker is in relatively good health (isn’t obese, doesn’t have chronic health conditions like diabetes, etc.), there’s a good chance he or she will still have higher medical costs than a comparable non-smoker over the last three years.
So, based on this study, is a smoking ban worthwhile?
Only if smokers at your company quit for good. If the smoker quits permanently, the costs usually even out.
If, however, your smoking ban only deters smokers at work — and they smoke away as soon as they get home — it’s not an effective cost-cutting tactic.
Tags: Chronic health conditions, Journal of Tobacco Policy & Research, Non-smoking, Workplace smoking bans
September 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
If the only concern is cost cutting from the wellness perspective, then yes, but there are a lot of other considerations that come into play when banning smoking – the cost to clean up the butts, the lost productivity from smokers taking multiple breaks throughout the day, the affect of non-smokers having to walk through smoke clouds, the general image of having people standing around smoking all the time, etc.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I don’t know about anyone else in HR reading this but even though I am a smoker, I don’t have time to go outside and smoke!!!!! I go almost every day without smoking during work hours.When I leave, it’s my decision, not my employers if I am going to engage in a legal activity. If it gets done to that I will request a list of all “dangerous lifestyle” choices to be provided. If it’s smoking only, I don’t think any emploter could win a case in court.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
There are alternative smoking devices that are getting better and better all the time. I’m sitting at my desk “smoking” right now. There are 43 carcinogens in or added to tobacco that are not in this “cigarette” and there is no tar because it doesn’t burn. It feels just like smoking but you are “smoking” a harmless water based vapor. The only thing it does have is the nicotine which is a stimulant like your coffee or red bull. The draw back to that of course is that its addictive. Well, too late for me on that! 95% of the people who quit smoking go back to it. With this “cigarette” you don’t have to quit smoking, you just quit tobacco. It is legal to smoke it anywhere because there is no smoke to ban. I’ve had it in the airport, the grocery store, a hospital room, restaurants, bars, you can even “smoke” it on an airline flight. As these products become more popular I think having to ban smoking will become a non-issue.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
p.s my boss loves it because now he can find me!
September 11th, 2009 at 7:41 am
To start with I am a smoker. It is not an illegal drug. I think banning cigaretts from business grounds is not right. I do understand those who don’t smoke don’t want to breathe it or smell it. People who smoke do it for a stress reliever. The more and more companies that band smoking on their property adds stress to those who smoke and in turn causes friction and bad attitudes. If they had one designated area ( even hospitals ), the stress levels would be a lot lower. The smokers has to have some respect for those who don’t. As well as the non smokers should have on us who do. Every one has some sort of a bad habit, unfortunately smoking is the most noticeable. I do believe smoking is very bad for you, but so is fast food. The companies want a wellness program than lets ban fast food with all the calaries, along with smoking. As Mindy says smokers take multiple breaks. To me that is a sound of jealousy. Take a break with them. You don’t have to go where they are but when they leave to smoke you need to walk away and go some where so there is no problem. I hear that here at my job as well. I always tell them it is your fault if you don’t take a break when one of us do.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I, too, am a smoker, and do take breaks. One of them usually occurs while others are leaving for the day, while I’ll be working another 1-2 hours. In 20+ years I have averaged 3.7 absences per year.
I avoid sweets, and maintain an appropriate weight, but pay a premium surcharge for my health plan, while others in the building are 50-100 pounds overweight, or diabetic and do not eat accordingly, or those who drink too much, and others who never exercise, and are left alone. I will never dispute that smoking is unhealthy, but it has become an easy group to carve out for punitive treatment.
I would love to see a study of how many days overweight people miss vs. those at recommended weight, and the same attendance study for diabetics and those who consume more than 1-2 drinks per day.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I like your way of thinking Ruth.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I agree with Ruth on this. The company I work for has talked about making smokers pay more for their health coverage and being in HR I always suggest we make overweight people pay more as well. In my plan the smokers would pay a certain dollar amount for each cig they smoke during 24 hour period averaged out over a year. The overweight people would pay x amount for each pound they are over the recommended weight scale for their height. It is a valid arguement that so far I win every year.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Our housekeeping staff takes one or two smoke breaks every hour. That’s five to 15 minutes worth of breaks per hour per shift! It would be a definite costs saving but their manager won’t address it.