Towards a Healthier Workplace: A Guidebook on Tobacco Control Policies

Workplace Tobacco Control: Effective Policies and Programs

This section provides an overview of workplace tobacco control, including:

• the rationale for, and benefits of, tobacco control policies in the workplace.
• policy options and samples.
• some overall and specific considerations to think about.
• a step-by-step plan for preparing, implementing and evaluating a tobacco control policy.

References are made throughout this section to the tools and handouts in Section II of this guidebook that complement the information in this section. You may choose to photocopy these and share them with others in your workplace.

Some Important Concepts

Second-hand smoke, which is sometimes referred to as "environmental tobacco smoke" or "ETS", is a mixture of the smoke that comes from the tip of a burning cigarette, pipe or cigar, and what a person who is smoking exhales.

Workplaces or worksites include indoor buildings as well as outdoor property and business vehicles.

Employees include all full- and part-time workers at all levels, as well as cleaning and security staff that may work overnight.

Workplace tobacco control policies, in the context of this guidebook, include efforts to help employees who wish to cut down or quit smoking.

The Rationale: Why We Need Workplace Tobacco Control Policies

There are five key reasons for introducing smoking restrictions in the workplace:

1. Better health.
2. Better business.
3. Complying with legislation.
4. Employee satisfaction.
5. Avoiding litigation.

1. Better Health

Many reliable studies have shown that exposure to second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and nasal sinus cancer. It is closely linked to respiratory problems, stroke, breast cancer, cervical cancer, miscarriages, sudden infant death syndrome and low birthweight babies. Second-hand smoke aggravates existing heart, lung and allergic conditions. It can worsen asthma and cause eye irritation, sore throat and headaches.^{1, 2}

More than 1,000 non-smokers die in Canada each year due to heart disease and cancers caused by second-hand smoke.³ Some researchers believe that these numbers may be far higher. In a report entitled Lost Lives, the British Columbia Workers Compensation Board concludes that second-hand smoke is a significant cause of workplace deaths, and has paid claims for compensation in that regard.⁴

In some workplaces, tobacco smoke places workers in double jeopardy. When combined with tobacco smoke, other chemicals can become even more dangerous. For example, exposure to tobacco smoke multiplies the danger of exposure to asbestos. It can also transform existing chemicals into more harmful ones.⁵

Smoking restrictions encourage employees who smoke to cut down or quit, and help prevent relapse among those who have become smoke-free. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that more than 26 percent of employees who smoked quit when smoking was prohibited in their workplace, compared with a 19 percent quit rate in a workplace that did not have a policy restricting smoking.⁶

Employees are an organization's most important asset. A comprehensive workplace tobacco control policy is an effective tool for promoting, protecting and improving their health.

2. Better Business

Smoking restrictions at the worksite makes good business sense. Employers that protect the health of their employees project a positive image in the community. Workplaces that restrict smoking and help employees change their smoking behaviours also receive a financial benefit. The amount of saving depends on a variety of factors, including the size of the business and the number of employees who smoke.

The Cost of Smoking

The costs associated with employee smoking are significant. Conservative estimates show annual costs per smoking employee can be up to $3,396 (see table below).⁹

The Annual Estimated Costs of Employing People Who Smoke
(per employee)

Cost Factor	Cost
Increased absenteeism	$ 323
Decreased productivity	$ 3,053
Smoking area costs	$ 20
TOTAL	$ 3,396

Source: The Conference Board of Canada, 2006

Increased absenteeism ($323)

The most recent Canadian research data show people who smoke take two more sick days per year than non-smokers.

Decreased productivity ($3,053)

Employees who smoke may take cigarette breaks on time not sanctioned by their employers as rest time. Also, given the increased bans on smoking in public places, smoking breaks now probably take longer as employees have to travel longer to a location where they are permitted to smoke. The Conference Board of Canada formula assumes that in total each smoking employee now spends 40 minutes every day (two 20-minute breaks) consuming cigarettes outside designated rest time.

Smoking area costs ($20)

Because smoking is now banned in most public places, very few workplaces now offer designated rooms or other indoor areas for smoking. This means workplaces no longer have to incur the associated costs of insuring, cleaning, maintaining and ventilating these spaces. In an effort to encourage their employees to quit smoking, most organizations do not install expensive outdoor shelters but some do install industrial ashtrays outside. The costs to employers for smoking facilities include purchasing and replacing a limited number of commercial ashtrays and cleaning them as well as the surrounding outdoor area.

More Financial Benefits

In addition to the cost/benefits discussed above, studies show that smoke-free policies reduce costs for cleaning and fire insurance, and there is less damage to equipment and furniture.¹⁰

It is often argued that service industry businesses such as restaurants, bars and hotels will suffer if smoke-free policies are introduced. However, studies in Canada, the United States and Australia all show that smoking bans do not result in lost business.¹¹ Indeed, every objective study using official sales tax data shows that smoke-free policies have a neutral or positive benefit in the long-term for businesses such as hotels and restaurants.¹²

Smoking cessation programs in the workplace may also achieve substantial cost savings, as well as productivity benefits. Workers who have stopped smoking for at least one year lose significantly fewer days of work and have fewer admissions to hospital than those who continue to smoke.¹³

3. Complying With Legislation

Many workplaces implement smoking policies in response to new legislation. In Canada, a growing number of federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal laws are now in place to limit workplace smoking.

Here are some examples:

The 1988 federal Non-smokers' Health Act restricts smoking to separate smoking rooms in workplaces under federal jurisdiction.¹⁴

Most provinces and territories have complete or partial smoking bans in place for public places and workplaces, and many municipalities across the country have similar bans. Following is a summary of the provincial and territorial legislation as of 2006:

100 percent smoke-free public places

• Saskatchewan
• Manitoba
• Ontario
• Quebec
• New Brunswick
• Nova Scotia
• Newfoundland and Labrador
• Nunavut
• Northwest Territories¹⁵

100 percent smoke-free workplaces

• Manitoba
• Ontario
• Quebec
• New Brunswick
• Nova Scotia
• Nunavut
• Northwest Territories¹⁶

A growing number of municipalities are introducing by-laws to control smoking in public places and workplaces. In Canada, over 300 municipalities have enacted by-laws to restrict or ban smoking in the workplace.^17,18For specific information about by-laws in your community, contact your public health department.

In addition to federal, provincial and municipal legislation, some policy makers are now looking at regulating exposure to second-hand smoke through occupational health and safety legislation. According to Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, strict compliance with health and safety legislation would require smoking to be banned in virtually all workplaces across Canada.¹⁹

4. Employee Satisfaction

Several surveys have found that a large majority of both smokers and non-smokers favour smoke-free workplaces. In the 1996/97 National Population Health Survey, 88 percent of smokers and 95 percent of non-smokers said that non-smokers should have a non-smoking work environment.²⁰Thus, workplaces that are smoke-free are more likely to attract and keep valuable employees. According to the Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (2005), nearly two-thirds of Canadians feel smoking should not be allowed in any section of a restaurant and 42 percent say it should not be allowed in a bar or tavern. Just over one-third of Canadians feel that smoking should not be allowed in any area of the workplace, whether indoor or outdoor, while just over half think that smoking should be allowed only in designated outdoor smoking areas of the workplace. ²¹

Many employees who smoke welcome workplace restrictions because it constrains their smoking and supports their efforts to cut down or quit. The majority of people who smoke would rather be non-smokers. In fact, 58 percent of current smokers are considering quitting smoking in the next six months.²²Employers can help them achieve this goal.

5. Avoiding Litigation

By providing a smoke-free environment, employers protect themselves from liability charges related to exposure to an identified workplace hazard.

Legislation in every province and territory requires employers to ensure that the workplace is safe. Employees who wish to work in a non-smoking environment have an increasingly convincing case that any exposure to second-hand smoke is unsafe and that it is both reasonable and practical for the employer to prohibit smoking as a way of ensuring a safe work environment.²³

The especially high risk of developing cancer or heart disease faced by non-smoking employees in the service industry has recently caught the attention of the national media. The chemical concentration of second-hand smoke is, on average, four to six times higher in bars and up to two times higher in restaurants where smoking is permitted.²⁴In one high profile case involving a non-smoking waitress, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board agreed that her terminal lung cancer was an occupational disease linked to long-term exposure to second-hand smoke.²⁵Similarly, the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board allowed a recent claim from a woman who filed for disability because she developed breast cancer working in a smoky workplace.²⁶

Workers and unions in the hospitality industries are more and more likely to ask for compensation for illnesses resulting from second-hand smoke and to demand a smoke-free, safe working environment.

On the other hand, employees who oppose smoke-free policies may find that the judiciary goes against them. Canadian courts and labour tribunals have firmly established that employers have the right and authority to create and maintain a smoke-free work environment. The courts have also decided that smokers' rights are not violated by a smoking ban under the Canadian Charter.²⁷