2007
ISBN: 978-0-662-44733-7
Cat. No.: H128-1/06-488E
HC Pub.: 4711
Help on accessing alternative formats, such as Portable Document Format (PDF), Microsoft Word and PowerPoint (PPT) files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.
Tobacco smoke is the single most significant source of indoor air pollution in work environments. Second-hand smoke -- which comes off the burning end of a cigarette or is exhaled by someone who is smoking -- exposes employees and customers to cancer-causing pollutants. It can also interact with other occupational hazards, further increasing the danger to health still more.
A comprehensive tobacco control policy is an effective way to protect employees, property and revenues. It costs more to allow smoking at work, than it does to restrict it.
This guidebook is designed to help employees and employers who are preparing to create or strengthen tobacco control policies in their workplaces. This guidebook was partially revised in 2006 using new information from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) as well as updated information from the Conference Board of Canada on the costs associated with employing people who smoke.
There are five sections:
This section provides an overview of workplace tobacco control, including:
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.
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.
There are five key reasons for introducing smoking restrictions in the workplace:
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.Footnote 1,Footnote 2
More than 1,000 non-smokers die in Canada each year due to heart disease and cancers caused by second-hand smoke.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.
Did You Know?
Second-hand smoke is a recognized workplace hazard. It contains over 4,000 chemicals, including:
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).Footnote 9
| 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 13
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.Footnote 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
100 percent smoke-free workplaces
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.Footnote 17,Footnote 18 For 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.Footnote 19
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.Footnote 20 Thus, 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 22 Employers can help them achieve this goal.
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.Footnote 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.Footnote 24 In 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.Footnote 25 Similarly, 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 27
Effective workplace tobacco control policies have two components:
Options 1 and 2 are the most effective way to protect employees from the hazards of second-hand smoke. Research has shown that the third option fails to provide 100 percent protection to workers and may not satisfy occupational health and safety laws, if they were rigorously enforced.Footnote 28
Many experts have concluded that attempts to use ventilation to overcome contamination from smoke are futile, since the required ventilation rates are far in excess of what is practical or even possible. There is a growing consensus that, while adjustments to workplace ventilation systems may reduce tobacco smoke pollution, the effectiveness of this approach is limited.Footnote 29
Designated smoking rooms (DSRs) are expensive. The City of Ottawa estimated that a medium-sized DSR (holding 20 people) would cost about $70,000 plus maintenance (about $3,500 per smoker for only the capital cost).Footnote 30
Workplaces that opt for DSRs need to be fully aware of the requirements for these facilities in their particular jurisdiction. For example, the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) has established that a DSR must be structurally separate to ensure smoke does not migrate into non-smoking areas. The smoking room must have a separate non-recirculating exhaust ventilation system with a minimum ventilation rate of 35 cubic feet per minute per person. Workers, such as those in the hospitality industry, may not be discriminated against for choosing not to enter a DSR. When workers choose to enter a DSR, exposure must not exceed 20 percent of the worker's time during a 24-hour work period. The WCB also states that it is not aware of any air cleaning system that can by itself meet the regulation's air flow and exhaust requirements.Footnote 31
In terms of designated smoking areas outside, the following requirements are suggested:
The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) sets standards for ventilation rates in North America. ASHRAE maintains that there is NO acceptable ventilation process for secondhand smoke.Footnote 33
Providing support for employees who wish to cut down or quit smoking is an important part of a comprehensive tobacco control policy. Helping an employee become a non-smoker is good for the bottom line in terms of cost savings in health and life insurance, reductions in absenteeism and increases in productivity. More importantly, it demonstrates the employer's commitment to enhancing the health of all employees, and an understanding that smoking is an addiction that deserves help in the same way that employees who are addicted to alcohol or other drugs need support. This kind of corporate philosophy is one that can be shared by unions, employee groups and management.
Creating a supportive environment that enables smokers to quit will help to ease tensions between smokers and non-smokers, and between management and smoking employees. It also projects an image of a business that cares about the safety and health of all employees.
Most adults cite health concerns as the main reason for wanting to quit smoking. Other reasons include changes in lifestyle, increased costs, pregnancy and a concern for the health of others.Footnote 34
Different Types of Interventions
In Canada, over half of all people who ever smoked have quit, and there are now more options than ever to help people succeed. Interventions vary from self-help resources to intensive small groups and one-on-one counseling, which may or may not include cessation medications.
Self-Help
Most people who quit smoking get help from family and friends or from self-help materials such as pamphlets or booklets. Call your local office of the Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Lung Association or public health department, or visit the websites listed in the Cessation Programs and Resources section. On the Road to Quitting, Health Canada's smoking cessation program, can be accessed on-line or in booklet form at www.gosmokefree.ca.
Brief, Professional Advice
A doctor, pharmacist or nurse can give some advice on quitting as well as some self-help material to take home. Telephone help-lines provide information and support, and callers can ask to have materials mailed to them. Check your phone book for the number of the Smokers Help-line, a free service available in all provinces or visit www.gosmokefree.ca and click on the list of toll-free quit lines organized by province. People living in the territories should contact their local public health unit or band council.
Intensive Counseling and Group Support
This type of intervention includes:
Contact your public health department for information about local organizations offering group programs or visit the websites listed in the Cessation Programs and Resources section of this guide.
Medications for Quitting Smoking
Nicotine gum and nicotine patches have been shown to help smokers quit and stay smoke-free. They are available without a prescription at your local drugstore. Bupropion is a prescription medication (brand name is Zyban) that may help reduce withdrawal symptoms and cravings. The likelihood of success increases when these products are used along with behaviour modification advice in self-help booklets, or with individual or group counseling. People who smoke fifteen or more cigarettes per day, who smoke soon after waking, and who report substantial withdrawal symptoms in previous quit attempts may be especially good candidates for nicotine replacement therapy.Footnote 35 Employees and unions may wish to negotiate to have cessation medications covered under employee medical insurance plans. They are a cost-effective way to help people quit smoking and thus reduce costs related to absenteeism and lost productivity time due to smoking in the workplace.
Cessation Programs and Resources
Health Canada provides a guide called Tobacco Use Cessation Programs: An Inventory of Canadian Tobacco Cessation Programs and Resources (2000 Update) that lists all types of programs (national and provincial/territorial). Health Canada also has an interactive, web-based smoking cessation program called On the Road to Quitting. On the Road to Quitting is also available as a booklet. To access this program or the resource guide, visit www.gosmokefree.ca and click on "quitting". You can also visit the following websites for information on getting materials for all types of interventions:
Other Cessation Activities
Here are some other workplace activities that support cessation:
Sample Policy #1
ABC Company is committed to providing a healthy, comfortable and productive work environment for our employees.
In order to eliminate hazards and ensure a safe, healthy workplace, the ABC Company shall be entirely smoke-free, effective .
All forms of tobacco use will be strictly prohibited within company buildings including but not limited to offices, hallways, waiting rooms, washrooms, lunch rooms, stairwells, elevators, meeting rooms and all enclosed facilities. Smoking is also prohibited on all outdoor property belonging to the company.
All company vehicles will also be designated smoke-free, including rental cars used for company business.
Copies of this policy will be distributed to all employees. Signs will be posted at all building entrances.
This policy is being announced in advance to facilitate a smooth transition. Those employees who smoke and would like to take this opportunity to quit smoking are invited to participate in the cessation supports being offered by ABC.
The success of this policy will depend on the thoughtfulness, consideration and cooperation of smokers and non-smokers. All of us share in the responsibility for adhering to and enforcing this policy.
Signature of CEO or President
Sample Policy #2
XYZ Company is committed to the health and safety of our employees and everyone visiting our premises. Therefore, effective smoking is prohibited throughout all company indoor facilities and in all company vehicles, including rental cars used for company business.
Additionally, smoking shall be prohibited within nine metres of all building entrances, windows and ventilation systems. To discourage smoking around doorways, all ashtrays and garbage receptacles will be placed beyond the nine metre limit.
This policy applies to all employees, visitors and customers.
To complement this policy, assistance will be offered to employees who want to quit smoking. Information about this is available from the Human Resources Department.
The success of our policy will depend upon mutual consideration and cooperation. Please join me in clearing the air in our workplace.
Signature of CEO or President
The Best Approach
Workplace tobacco control policies may be initiated on their own; however, it is best if they are integrated with other efforts to promote health, safety and wellness among all employees. Thus, when applicable, it is important to involve representatives of unions and programs such as occupational health, health and safety committees, and employee assistance from the outset, and to move through the networks and processes that these groups already have in place, when it is appropriate.
A comprehensive approach to workplace health considers all of the following components:
The approach in this guidebook builds upon the principles and methods outlined in Health Canada's Workplace Health System. This, system suggests that workplaces need to recognize and respect the needs, preferences, attitudes and lifestyles of different groups of employees and to adapt to the unique features of each workplace environment.Footnote 36
Involvement of Organized Labour
As the evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke continues to escalate, organized labour is getting more and more involved in efforts to protect their members from the hazards of second-hand smoke.
When unions have opposed smoke-free policies, their opposition has generally focussed on the process by which the policy was adopted, rather than the content of the policy. Their concern has been that management had breached its duty to bargain with the union regarding the adoption and implementation of the policy.Footnote 37
Two other tensions identified by unions include:
Recently, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) adopted a seven-point position statement in the interest of public health and the CLC affiliate membership. It specifies labour's support for government smoking restrictions in public workplaces and public facilities to prevent the public's involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke. Where no legislation is in place, smoke-free workplaces are to be achieved through discussion and negotiation between workers and employers.
This position is based on the employer's duty to eliminate all chronic health hazards in the workplace and the right of workers to not be exposed to any toxic hazards. Affiliates are also encouraged to negotiate employer-paid smoking cessation and education programs, separate and effectively ventilated rest areas, and employer-paid treatments for addicted workers.Footnote 38
The process for developing and implementing a workplace tobacco control policy involves a series of steps. These can be divided into three phases: 1) preparation, 2) implementation and 3) follow-up and maintenance.
Sample Terms of Reference for the Working Group
on Tobacco Control
Purpose: To develop and implement a policy to eliminate exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace of XXX Inc.
Tasks:
Duration: It is expected that the policy will be in place by [month, day, year]. After that time, selected members of the working group will work with the Health and Safety Committee to monitor the implementation and evaluate the initiative for a period of one year.
Meetings: Every second Monday at 3:00 pm.
Dealing with Enforcement
* Adapted from Clearing the Air in Workplaces: A Guidebook for Developing Effective Tobacco Control Policies, Program Training and Consultation Centre (2001).
| Workplace Situation | Tailor Your Plan |
|---|---|
| High proportion of unionized employees |
|
| High percentage of employees are women |
|
| High proportion of smokers are skilled tradespeople or labourers |
|
| High percentage of smokers identify addiction as their main reason for smoking |
|
| Low percentage of smokers identify a desire to quit |
|
| Workers identify stress as their main reason for smoking |
|
| Employees express concerns about enforcement of the policy |
|
There are a number of good reasons to evaluate your workplace tobacco control initiative:
It is useful to employ three types of evaluations when developing and implementing a workplace tobacco control policy.
This information was adapted from material prepared by the Health Communication Unit, Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto.
Collishaw, N. (2001). Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Special Reports.
Collishaw, N., & Meldrum, H. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Canada: Applying Health Science to Occupational Health and Safety Law. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Makomaski Illing, E.M. & Kaiserman, M.J. (1999). Mortality Attributable to Tobacco Use in Canada and Its Regions, 1994 and 1996. Chronic Disease in Canada. 20(3).
Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia (WCB) (1999).
Lost Lives: Work-Related Deaths in British Columbia. 1999. www.worksafebc.com
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (2002). www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/ets_resolutions.html
Moskowitz, J.M. (2001). The Impact of Smoking Ordinances in California on Smoking Cessation. American Journal of Public Health. 90: 757-61.
Health Canada (2003). www.gosmokefree.ca
Collishaw, N. & Meldrum, H. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Canada: Applying Health Science to Occupational Health and Safety Law. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Conference Board of Canada (2006). Smoking and the Bottom Line: Updating the Costs of Smoking in the Workplace. Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada.
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (2002). Economic Cost of Tobacco Use. http://tobacco.aadac.com
World Bank Group, Health, Nutrition and Population (2002).
Smoke-free workplaces. [Fact sheet]
www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/AAG SmokeFree Workplaces.pdf
Colman, R. (2001). The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Workplaces: An Assessment for Nova Scotia. Tobacco Control Unit, Nova Scotia Department of Health.
Henningfield, J.E., Ramstrom L.M., Husten C.G., et al. (1994). Smoking and the Workplace: Realities and Solutions. Journal of Smoking Related Diseases. 5 (Suppl. 1): 261-270.
Government of Canada (1985). Non-smokers' Health Act. Revised Statutes of Canada. Chapter N-23.6 (R.S., c.15, 4thsupp.).
Non-Smokers' Rights Association (2006).
Provincial & Territorial Legislation, Regulation or Policy. www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/page1461.cfm.
Non-Smokers' Rights Association (2006).
Provincial & Territorial Legislation, Regulation or Policy. www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/page1461.cfm.
Canadian Cancer Society. (2001). Provinces and Municipalities in Canada with Smoke-Free Laws for Restaurants and Bars.
Health Canada (1995). Smoking By-Laws in Canada. www.gosmokefree.ca
Collishaw, N. & Meldrum, H. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Canada: Applying Health Science to Occupational Health and Safety Law. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Statistics Canada (1994/5 and 1996/97). National Population Health Survey, Cycle 1 and Cycle 2. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Health Canada (2005). Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS). www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/index_e.html.
Health Canada (2005). Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS). www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/index_e.html.
Harrison, M. & Hill, D. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke in Canada: Current Legislative and Case Law Trends. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Siegel, M. (1993). Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Employee Exposure and Health Effects. Journal of the American Medical Association. 270(4): 490-3.
Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (2002). www.wsib.on.ca
British Columbia Workers Compensation Board (2001). www.worksafebc.com
Harrison, M. & Hill, D. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke in Canada: Current Legislative and Case Law Trends. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Collishaw, N. & Meldrum, H. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Canada: Applying Health Science to Occupational Health and Safety Law. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Repace, J. (2002).
Can Ventilation Control SecondHand Smoke in the Hospitality Industry? www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/documents/FedOHSHAets.pdf
City of Ottawa (2002). Report to Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee: Smoke-Free Bylaws of the City of Ottawa. Ref No: ACS2001-PEO-HEA-0003.
British Columbia Workers Compensation Board (2002).
Smoking Areas for Public Entertainment Facilities. www.worksafebc.com
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health (1996). Making your Workplace Smoke-Free: A Decision Maker's Guide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) (1999).
Health Canada. www.gosmokefree.ca
Program Training and Consultation Centre (2001).
Clearing the Air in Workplaces: A Guidebook for Developing Effective Tobacco Control Policies. www.ptcc.on.ca
Health Canada (2002). Healthworks Guide. www.gosmokefree.ca
Harrison, M. & Hill, D. (2002). Protection from Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke in Canada: Current Legislative and Case Law Trends. Ottawa: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Canadian Labour Congress (2002).
Labour and Tobacco Policy Paper. www.clc-ctc.ca/health-safety/hsrights.html
The Health Communication Unit, Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto (2002). www.thcu.ca
These tools are designed to assist employees and employers who are developing a tobacco control policy. You may adapt them to suit your particular needs.
This handout summarizes both the health and business benefits of implementing a workplace tobacco control policy. It can be distributed when making an initial "pitch" to employee representatives, management teams and committees.
This tool describes the nature of recommended policies and ways that workplaces can support those who want to quit smoking or cut down.
This handout provides a step-by-step plan for going smoke-free.
This is a sample employee survey for gathering information on employee attitudes, beliefs and experiences regarding second-hand smoke. It is also meant to gauge the level of support for non-smoking policies in the workplace and includes questions for smokers who want to quit.
This worksheet enables workplace representatives to calculate the cost associated with employing people who smoke.
There are five key reasons for introducing a workplace tobacco control policy:
This information sheet was adapted from material prepared by the Program Training and Consultation Centre.
Effective workplace tobacco control initiatives have two components:
Policy Options
Policy options include:
Options 1 or 2 are the most effective way to protect employees from the hazards of secondhand smoke. Research has shown that the third option fails to provide 100 percent protection to workers and may not satisfy occupational health and safety laws, if they were rigorously enforced. Designated, separately ventilated smoking rooms are expensive and the employer must ensure that employees are not required to enter this area to perform any normal work activities.
Support for Smoking Cessation
Helping employees who want to cut down or stop smoking is both cost-effective and worthwhile. The health benefits of quitting begin immediately and can lead to a longer life with less disability and better overall health.
Here are some of the ways to support smoking cessation:
This handout provides a step-by-step plan for going smoke-free. More details are provided in the first section of the guidebook. You can modify the schedule to suit your workplace, but experience has shown that it is best to be open about the process, to implement the policy in stages, and to involve key people from all parts of the workplace.
Phase I: Preparation
Phase II: Implementation
Phase III: Follow-Up and Maintenance
Part A - About Smoking in Our Workplace
Part B - About a Smoke-Free Policy for Our Workplace
Note: Enclosed areas inside do not provide full protection from second-hand smoke. Some smoke does escape and re-circulate.
Part C - About Me
Part D - About Supporting People who Smoke
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. This information will assist us with our plans to increase protection from second-hand smoke in our workplace and to support smokers who wish to cut down or quit.
In 2006 the Conference Board of Canada updated a formula it had developed in 1997 to estimate the cost of smoking to a business or organization. According to this new information, the estimated annual cost is up to $3,396 for each employee who smokes. This includes costs associated with increased absenteeism, decreased productivity, and providing commercial ashtrays for outside smoking areas and keeping these areas clean.
Increased absenteeism
The most recent Canadian research data indicate that smokers take two more sick leave days per year than their non-smoking counterparts. Calculating the cost of additional absenteeism is a matter of multiplying the difference between the annual number of sick days taken by smokers and non-smokers by the average daily per-employee payroll cost. The formula for calculating the additional absenteeism cost of smoking employees to employers is:
COST Absent = DAYS LOST Smoker × DAILY WAGE ×
(1 + BENEFITS and TAXES)
= $323
Legend
Decreased productivity
The second part of the model examines the cost of cigarette breaks taken by smoking employees during the workday. This cost only applies to employees who are unable to smoke in their immediate work area and must travel to another location to have a cigarette. But, because of new municipal bylaws and stronger provincial legislation prohibiting smoking in public places and workplaces, this cost now applies to a large majority of employees who smoke.
It is assumed that on average smokers consume five cigarettes in an eight-hour workday and that three of these are consumed during employer-sanctioned breaks. In terms of lost productivity, it is assumed smokers take two smoking breaks on time not sanctioned by employers as rest time. Also, given the increased bans on smoking in public places, it is also reasonable to assume that smoking breaks now take longer as employees usually have to travel longer to a location where they are permitted to smoke. In total each smoking employee now spends 40 minutes every day (two 20-minute breaks) consuming cigarettes outside sanctioned rest time.
The average hourly wage, combined with payroll taxes and benefits is used to calculate the cost of extra smoking breaks to employers using the following formula:
COST Prod =
CIGS × (TIME ÷ MINUTES) × WAGE Average × (1 + BENEFITS and TAXES) × DAYS WORKED
= $3, 053
Legend
Smoking facilities costs
Because smoking is now banned in most public places, very few workplaces offer designated smoking rooms or other indoor areas. Workplaces, no longer have to incur the associated costs of insuring, cleaning, maintaining and ventilating these spaces. In an effort to encourage their employees to quit smoking, most organizations also do not install expensive outdoor shelters but some do install industrial ashtrays outside.
The costs to employers for smoking facilities include purchasing and replacing a limited number of commercial ashtrays and cleaning them as well as the surrounding area. The formula for calculating these costs is:
Formula 1 (Ashtrays)
Ashtray =
[($ASHTRAY) / SMOKE-EMP]
÷ (ASHDURA)
= $8.50
Legend
Formula 2 (Cleaning time)
ASHCLEAN =
[(CLEANTIME/MINUTES) × WAGECLEAN × (1 + BENEFITS and TAXES) × WORKYEAR]
÷ SMOKE-EMP
= $11.34
Legend
Total smoking facilities
Costs
ASHTRAY + ASHCLEAN = $20
Source: The Conference Board of Canada, 2006
These handouts are designed to provide employees with key information on second-hand smoke, smoking cessation and the benefits of a tobacco control policy. They can be distributed at meetings or through internal mail, posted on notice boards or put in payroll envelopes.
This handout answers questions about the health effects of second-hand smoke, the benefits of a tobacco control policy and how individual employees can get involved. Space is provided to add a contact name at your worksite so employees will know whom to see about getting more information.
This handout spells out the immediate and longer-term benefits of quitting smoking. It can be used to help motivate employees to take advantage of on-site or community-based smoking cessation programs and resources.
This handout describes 10 ways to help people who are in the process of becoming smoke-free. It is intended to help increase support for employees who want to quit smoking.
This handout describes different ways to quit smoking. It can be linked to information about smoking cessation programs and resources provided at the workplace or in the community. Space is provided to add a contact name at your worksite so employees will know whom to see about getting more information.
This handout describes the dangerous chemicals that are in tobacco smoke and emphasizes the increased danger when they are mixed with other substances that may be present in the workplace.
Q. What is second-hand smoke?
A. Second-hand smoke is the smoke that comes from the tip of a burning cigarette, pipe or cigar and when a smoker exhales. It contains over 4,000 chemical compounds, 50 of which are associated with, or known to cause cancer.
Q. How does second-hand smoke affect my health and the health of others?
A. Second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and nasal sinus cancer. It is also linked to respiratory problems, stroke, breast cancer, cervical cancer, miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome and low birthweight babies. People exposed to secondhand smoke may experience headaches, worsened asthma, and eye, nose and throat irritations. More than 1,000 non-smokers die in Canada each year due to heart disease and cancers caused by second-hand smoke.
Q. How can a workplace tobacco control policy help?
A. Tobacco control policies that eliminate smoking in all indoor areas of the worksite (including vehicles) help to protect workers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Enclosed, separately ventilated smoking rooms do not offer 100 percent protection. They will dilute the smoke but will not make it safe, since there is no known safe level of exposure to cancer-causing agents. These rooms are also expensive to build and maintain. They may be used as a transitional arrangement, but are not the best solution.
Q. What about employees who smoke?
A. Many smokers welcome workplace smoking restrictions because it helps them cut down or quit. Providing support for smoking cessation at the workplace makes it easier to implement tobacco control policies and increases the benefits for employees and employers.
Q. What can I do to help clear the air in my workplace?
A. You can:
For more information, please contact:
What a difference a smoke-free day makes! Quitting now means immediate benefits to your health. And it just keeps getting better.
The day you have your last cigarette, your body begins to heal itself ...
20 minutes after quitting, your blood pressure drops to your pre-cigarette level.
8 hours after quitting, the carbon monoxide in your blood drops to normal.
24 hours after quitting, you lower your chances of having a heart attack.
48 hours after quitting, your sense of smell and taste improve and begin to return to normal.
In the months and years to come, your body continues to recover ...
2 weeks to 3 months after quitting, your circulation improves and your lungs work better. (Try taking the stairs now!)
9 months after quitting, you experience less coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue and shortness of breath.
1 year after quitting, your risk of heart disease is about half of what it would have been if you had continued to smoke.
5 years after quitting, your risk of stroke is greatly reduced. Within 5 to 15 years after quitting, it becomes about the same as a non-smoker's risk.
10 years after quitting, your risk of dying from lung cancer is about half of what it would have been if you had continued to smoke. Your risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney and pancreas also decreases.
15 years after quitting, your risk of heart disease is the same as a non-smoker's risk.
Over half the people who have ever smoked in Canada have quit. You can too!
This information sheet was adapted from material prepared by the Program Training and Consultation Centre, the Alberta Tobacco Reduction Alliance and information from www.gosmokefree.ca (Health Canada).
People who smoke need support and understanding when they are struggling to become smoke-free. Here are 10 ways you can help.
This information sheet was adapted from material prepared by the Program Training and Consultation Centre and the Alberta Tobacco Reduction Alliance.
Tobacco is addictive and quitting smoking may not always be easy. But over half of Canadians who smoked have managed to quit and stay smoke-free. Today, there are more options than ever to help you quit smoking.
Help Is Available
Support for smoking cessation varies from informal self-help materials to intensive counseling and cessation medications.
Self-Help Aids: Most people who quit smoking get help from family and friends or from self-help materials such as pamphlets or booklets. Call your local office of the Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Lung Association or public health department or visit the following websites for information on getting self-help materials:
Brief, Professional Advice: A doctor, pharmacist or nurse can give you some advice on quitting as well as some self-help material to take home. Telephone help-lines provide information and support, and you can ask to have materials mailed to you. Check your phone book for the number of the Smokers Help-line, a free service provided in all provinces or visit www.gosmokefree.ca for a list of quit lines. People in the territories should contact their local public health unit or band council.
Intensive Counseling and Group Support: Ask your doctor about counseling sessions that are covered under health insurance plans. Consider joining a group program provided by your public health department or a voluntary community group.
Medications for Quitting Smoking: Nicotine gum and nicotine patches have been shown to help smokers quit and stay smoke-free. They are available without a prescription at your local drugstore. Or ask your doctor about bupropion, (Zyban™) a prescription medicine that will help reduce withdrawal symptoms and cravings.
For more information, please contact:
Tobacco products and the smoke they produce harm the health of smokers and people around them.
Tobacco Is Deadly and Addictive
The compounds and chemicals in tobacco put people who smoke at high risk for developing heart disease, stroke, cancer, emphysema and bronchitis. The nicotine in tobacco products is highly addictive. It produces a physical dependency that makes men and women who smoke crave tobacco, regardless of the damage it does to their health.
Toxic Chemicals in Tobacco Smoke
Non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are also exposed to a host of deadly chemicals.
Second-hand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including:
According to several provincial health and safety acts, 26 of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke are "known toxic agents" which are so dangerous that "any exposure should be avoided".
Double Jeopardy in Some Workplaces
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.
Protecting Workers' Health
Smoke-free workplace policies create safer workplaces. They protect and improve workers' health by eliminating exposure to the harmful effects of tobacco smoke and helping those who smoke to cut down or quit.
This section contains:
Health Canada would like to sincerely thank the above sites for sharing their stories. They provide a practical way for all of us to learn about how best to initiate workplace tobacco control policies and programs.
All six case stories demonstrate the need for an open, participatory approach that involves all parts of the workplace -- employees, unions, management and representatives of health and safety structures. Each of these groups, but particularly employees, must be given a "voice" and be respectfully heard. While Alcan Inc. is most clear about the need to be guided by a set of values (including respect, integrity, mutual aid and self-help), all of the sites demonstrate a process based on honesty and respect for people's choices and concerns. Everyone is treated as an equal and the policy is equally applied to all.
When it comes to timing, the lessons learned reflect the importance of understanding your specific workplace. In a small business, a policy may or may not be quickly implemented; in large unionized worksites and facilities where people live, it is essential to allow adequate lead time after the policy is announced to prepare for successful implementation. In Canada, the time of year and weather considerations are also important, when a new policy dictates that employees must smoke only outside.
Several cases demonstrate the value of making tobacco control and help with cessation part of an ongoing health promotion or health and safety program. All suggest that while protecting the health of workers should be the primary reason for bringing in a policy, a strong business case can also be made to implement a policy. A cleaner facility, reduced insurance premiums, and reductions in absenteeism are some of the cost-saving outcomes experienced in these stories. In the case of the Red Shoe Pub, a smoke-free policy did not result in any loss of business or customer loyalty.
Lastly, the six stories provide some rich ideas for innovation, such as involving family members and constructing specially built shelters as designated outdoor smoking areas.
Province of Quebec
Alcan Inc. is a Canadian corporation that specializes in aluminum and packaging. It is a multicultural, multilingual organization with 52,000 employees and operations in 38 countries. Maison Alcan, the corporate headquarters, is located in Montreal and operations exist in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Taking advantage of its size and diversity, as opposed to letting it complicate and hinder matters, the Alcan sites in Quebec banded together to create a joint union-management committee to address smoking issues.
Since 1995, Alcan in Quebec has been working to reduce tobacco in the workplace to prevent disease and to improve the health and well-being of its employees.
From the beginning a comprehensive, integrated approach using a multi-pronged strategy that included promotion, prevention and cessation support was used. All activities rested on the fundamental values of respect, integrity, mutual aid and self-help. A community animator was hired to guide the process and ensure that the approach and values were respected.
The committee, with representatives from all areas and levels within the company and health professionals, met from two to three times per year. This eventually led to the creation of a provincial roundtable on tobacco control in the corporation. It was this multidisciplinary, multisectoral group that set the objectives for the strategy and ensured all perspectives and expertise were included. The main objective was identified as the elimination of tobacco exposure for employees and their families (including children), whether or not they were smokers.
It was truly a cooperative effort. Employees were not divided. Unions insisted for example, that there be no pitting of smokers against non-smokers and that the initiative be carried out in a non-coercive manner. This approach was broadened to include the families of Alcan employees. Spouses were invited to participate and take advantage of the cessation activities. Prevention and cessation activities were also directed toward the children of employees.
Once the group had finalized their objectives and approach, they met with company directors from across Quebec in all areas of the company. This included various plants and Maison Alcan, the corporate headquarters in Montreal. Each director was provided with a binder that explained the details of the proposed program, including the objectives and the rationale. While initially hesitant, unions clearly supported the proposed program and policy initiatives for controlling tobacco in the workplace. Important union demands did include that they not play a policing role, and that the company not use this important health promotion initiative as a way to absolve themselves from other workplace health issues. Because tobacco control is a health issue, existing workplace health and safety committees were encouraged to sensitize employees around the issues and promote the program. A steering committee with representatives from the various workplace health safety committees across the province was set up to get the process started and to ensure it would continue. This steering committee included upper managers, as they were critical to help lead the program to success. Union representatives were also included as were a mix of both smokers and non-smokers. Experiences were shared, issues were discussed and resolved, and program and promotion initiatives were developed.
Because the sites across the province were unique, the challenges they faced varied between them. For instance, Maison Alcan, the corporate headquarters, is a significantly different workplace than the manufacturing plants. During the gradual implementation phase of the smoking ban, the most resistance from the employees at Maison Alcan came when smoking was no longer allowed in individual offices. Employees felt these spaces were their own; they were their private workspaces that often contained family photos and other personal items and some balked at being told they could no longer smoke in them. While today it is accepted that second-hand smoke does not respect artificial boundaries, at the time of the Alcan smoking ban this was not generally understood. As non-smoking policies become the norm at workplaces, resistance is less strong and employees are more accepting. Now at Maison Alcan there are rarely challenges to the policy. And while there was a need for enforcement when the policy was first implemented, through measures such as warnings and reports from security staff, enforcement is virtually no longer required.
Although the smoking ban is in place at all Alcan locations in Quebec, prevention, promotion and cessation activities continue to support employees. Alcan is also proud of the financial contribution they make to this initiative. While the cessation support component accounts for most of the ongoing cost, there is also a small but effective coordination budget to ensure the initiative remains active and viable. Thanks to these commitments, the program remains free for both employees and their families. Health promotion initiatives continue to be planned annually and have included public awareness campaigns, sponsor challenges, interactive displays, and the distribution of promotional material. Prevention activities include resources for both smokers and non-smokers in the workplace and educational workshops on tobacco cessation. One program is aimed at supporting those who are considering quitting. Work over the last two years has focussed on refining messages and approaches to reach those who have not expressed an interest in quitting smoking.
In the plant in Jonquière, Quebec, a location that employs 3,150 workers, smoking rates fell 40 percent, from 29 percent to 18 percent. This translates to 369 employees quitting smoking. During the first four years of the five-year program, 691 employees at the complex in Jonquière were part of an evaluation, including 511 spouses and 265 children and young adults. Between 68 and 75 percent of smokers participated in the program and at the end of the first year about 42 percent had successfully quit smoking. Of those who relapsed, 46 percent joined the program again at least once which resulted in an overall success rate of 54 percent for the program at the end of four years. The success rate for spouses and children were both over 40 percent.
The tobacco control policy process at Alcan was guided by a set of values:
respect, integrity, mutual aid and self-help. Everyone had the chance to voice their views and all opinions were considered. For example, union representatives were able to lend their full support because their concerns were heard and respected. This open, participatory approach ensured that all employees were involved and had the opportunity to participate. This made it much easier to eventually implement the total smoking ban.
Alcan's story demonstrates the benefits of including family members in the initiative and of making tobacco control a part of an on-going health promotion program instead of a one-shot initiative.
Arnprior, Ontario
Boeing Canada's Arnprior division has a strong commitment to the philosophy of "working together." And working together at Boeing Arnprior means more than just the production of commercial airplane parts -- it has also produced an innovative and effective non-smoking policy.
The plant is located in Arnprior, Ontario, a town about 40 minutes west of Ottawa. What began as a helicopter production and maintenance plant evolved into a production plant for a mix of commercial airplane parts.
The average age of the Boeing Arnprior workforce is 44, with 111 of its 700 employees having over 20 years of service and 390 over 10 years. This diverse group of skilled workers does specialized work and they are used to working in a cooperative environment. It is this cooperative spirit and team approach that helped a group of Boeing employees develop and implement a smoke-free workplace policy that works for everyone.
At one time smoking was allowed throughout the plant, with the obvious exception of the helicopter and fuelling areas. In the 1980s, when smoking was banned in the buildings, it moved outside -- sometimes only just outside, in the building entrances. Learning from the experience of one of its sister locations in Winnipeg, where a total smoking ban was met with resistance and resulted in a host of other issues, Boeing Arnprior developed a smoking policy very carefully.
A situational target proposal (STP) team was put together that included unionized and non-unionized employees, management representatives, and both smokers and non-smokers, from all classifications, including production. Representatives from the facilities' organization as well as the Health and Safety Committee were also invited to participate.
As a team they decided the first step should be to survey their fellow workers. This uncovered some interesting facts, including that 50 percent of the employees were smokers (which may be an inflated number and say more about the number of smokers who responded to the survey than the percentage of actual smokers). But the survey responses also asked a lot questions, revealing the complicated and multifaceted nature of the issue, and the effect it would have on the Boeing workforce.
Non-smokers wanted to be assured they could still socialize with their smoking colleagues during breaks. There were possible human rights and legal issues, as well as practical issues in terms of how the cigarette butts would be cleaned and by whom. The team was also concerned with ensuring that all employees be represented and their opinions considered.
The Labour Relations Department was then presented with the daunting task of finding appropriate responses for all of the concerns that were voiced. Some of the questions were more difficult to answer than others and legal opinions had to be sought and then communicated to employees. A whole consultation process began to evolve that included crew meetings, management involvement, postings on bulletin boards and other communications with employees. Management wanted the policy to come from the ground up. They did not want to "push" the policy down on the employees, so the STP team was asked to develop the new policy, based on everything that had been learned over the past seven months.
What emerged was a restriction on smoking anywhere on the premises, including between buildings, but allowing smoking in specially built shelters. This not only restricted smoking locations, but now also restricted smoking times to official breaks only, as smoking used to occur as people moved from one building to another. Signs were posted that identified the designated smoking areas.
The design of the structures posed some challenges. A provincial specialist had to be contacted to ensure that the shelters would not be in contravention of the Ontario Smoking in the Workplace Act. Arnprior's by-laws were also reviewed. The collective agreement had to be consulted to ensure that policies and procedures in outside areas could be enforced. There were also issues to consider in terms of arbitration and the possibility of a grievance being submitted. To this end, the policy was tested to make sure it was clear, reasonable and consistent with the collective agreement and that it was communicated to all employees before it was implemented, and what the consequences of a breach would be. It was also clear that the policy also must be consistently applied, a possible challenge with a workforce of 700.
The new smoking policy supports other health promotion and employee wellness programs that Boeing already offers, including smoking cessation programs and benefit coverage, a blood pressure monitor station, a heart smart program, nutritious menu choices in the cafeteria, and an employee health newsletter.
Reaction to the policy has been very positive. As soon as the first shelter was erected, the smokers began using it on their own initiative. Claiming ownership almost immediately, their first concerns revolved around the need to keep it clean and the possibility of decorating it at Christmas. Non-smokers are pleased to enjoy a completely smoke-free workplace. To date, no grievances have been filed and one of the STP members has quit smoking and several other employees have come forward to share their experiences about giving up smoking.
The Boeing story demonstrates the value of a careful and co-operative approach to tobacco control in the workplace that begins with defining boundaries by gathering data and information through surveys and legal consultations. Commitment and support from senior management, combined with the development of a strong cross-functional team, which drew on a varied group of people with responsibilities from all levels of the organization, was key to its success. Other businesses may also want to consider the innovative solution adopted by Boeing - specially built shelters as designated outdoor smoking areas.
Vermilion and Lloydminster, Alberta
College and university residences are where many students spend a good part of their academic lives. They eat, sleep, study and socialize in their residence buildings. But these temporary homes to thousands of Canadian students are often workplaces for some student staff members. This raises some interesting issues about implementing non-smoking policies in residences.
Established in 1913, Lakeland College offers certificate, diploma, apprenticeship, and applied degree programs, university transfer courses and community education programs at its campuses in Vermilion and Lloydminster, Alberta. The college recently established a presence in Sherwood Park, Alberta and will open a campus there this decade. About 1,800 full- and part-time students attend Lakeland College each year and 150 faculty and 250 union and administrative workers are employed at the college.
Smoking was first addressed at the college in 1989 and designated smoking areas were established. Continued pressure and complaints from students and staff led the college to readdress the issue three years later. At that time, smoking was banned in all college vehicles and buildings, including the student residences. There are some family housing units regulated under the Landlord and Tenant Act that were not covered in the college non-smoking policy, but these units are converting to smoke-free as tenants turn over. The only other places where smoking is permitted are in the student-run, on-campus pubs where new "smoke-eater" air filters were recently installed.
Prior to the implementation of the non-smoking policy, the college found it difficult to attract staff and faculty to work in an environment that allowed smoking. Almost all staff members wanted smoke-free residences. The wishes of the staff, in addition to concerns over health, insurance, and fire safety all created the impetus to go entirely smoke-free.
During the development of the policy, installing filters in smoking areas was one of the options considered. However, the College's Board of Governors did not approve this expense. A survey was then circulated to all employees who ultimately voted for Lakeland College to go entirely smoke-free.
Smoking continued to occur indoors in certain areas for some time. The committee sent reminders to staff that the non-smoking policy was in effect and requested that the individual departments look after their areas in this regard. Using this approach instead of an enforcement method helped bring about the elimination of all smoking indoors.
The non-smoking policy has been well accepted and there have been no problems with staff and students smoking inside the college facilities. To reduce litter and prevent smoke from drifting into open doorways, large ashtrays and benches were placed off-to-the-side outside the doorways. The only time that cigarette butts litter the ground is in winter when the snow is so deep people have a hard time getting to the ashtrays and benches.
Support is available from the college for staff members who would like to quit smoking. A few years ago smoking cessation programs were offered. The on-campus nurse used a peak flow metre to help raise awareness of decreased lung volume resulting from smoking. Not many staff members participated as very few staff are smokers, and now that the patch and gum are available over the counter they are no longer covered by the plan. The staff health benefit program covers one-time usage of prescription nicotine patch or nicotine gum to provide incentive for quitting for those who do smoke.
The student Rodeo Club on campus supports a Chew Awareness event to profile the health effects of chewing tobacco and encourage students to quit using it. Unfortunately, chewing tobacco is quite popular among some students and is sometimes viewed as a safer alternative to smoking tobacco due to the potential immediate and serious fire hazard on ranches and in barns, in addition to longer-term health consequences.
Health and safety issues such as smoking are the responsibility of Lakeland College's Joint Occupational Health, Safety and Fire Committee. This committee is comprised of members from faculty, staff and management. During the past year the college created a full-time health and safety staff position. In addition, a health and safety audit is conducted every year to ensure equipment at the institution is well maintained, and all policies are enforced.
There are two committee levels that manage health and safety issues at Lakeland College at present, however this process is currently under review. Problems that arise are first discussed at the campus level with the Local Health and Safety Committee with employees from every department and faculty. Any issues that cannot be resolved then go to the Joint Occupational Health, Safety and Fire Committee. If problems are still encountered, the Executive Committee of the college is the final arbitrator.
Employees who work and live in facilities that are also residences are particularly vulnerable to exposure to second-hand smoke. In this situation, concerns about fire safety and insurance costs are also important for making the case for going smoke-free.
Lakeland College was successful in bringing in a smoke-free policy by involving everyone in the policy development process - employees, management and students - and by offering help to smokers who wanted to quit. They have a well-established, representative structure for handling health and safety issues that allows employees to voice concerns and ensures that all policies (including non-smoking policies) are in force. This has likely been a factor in both the smooth implementation of a nonsmoking policy in residences at a time when supportive local legislation was not yet in place, and in the continuing respect for the policy.
While not an official part of the original smoke-free policy, action on chewing tobacco on campus is of interest. This is a reminder that we need to inform people that the use of all tobacco products is unsafe.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Over a decade ago at the Q94 FM radio station in Winnipeg, Manitoba there was a whole lotta smokin'goin' on. The majority of staff members were smokers. With each of them smoking between one and two packs of cigarettes per shift, there was always at least one lit cigarette burning in an ashtray. Over the past 12 years however, the air has cleared at Q94 FM and employees now enjoy a smoke-free environment.
Q94 FM is part of CHUM Limited, one of Canada's leading media companies, owning and operating 28 radio stations, eight local television stations and 17 specialty channels, as well as an environmental music distribution division. About 70 people work at the Winnipeg station including announcers, but there are also clerical, promotional, and news writing positions. The offices are located in one long building with no windows that open. The announcer booths are approximately 4 meters by 4 meters (12 feet by 12 feet).
At Q94 FM, like most radio stations, there is a high-energy atmosphere. On a daily basis, staff experience the adrenaline rushes associated with meeting deadlines and preparing for and going "live" on air. Although always exciting, there is also some stress involved in working in such a charged environment. In the past, cigarettes may have been used by staff and management as a coping mechanism to relieve workplace stress.
Before the smoke-free policy was implemented, the current general manager estimates that about 90 percent of all employees, including management, smoked. The general manager at the time had just suffered a heart attack and personally decided he wanted to stop smoking. As well, the cost of repairing and replacing sensitive electronic sound equipment at the station had become very high -- hundreds of thousands of dollars over any five-year period. And although there were no formal surveys at the time, there was a sense that the employees were becoming increasingly open to the idea of a smoke-free workplace. Smoking was becoming restricted in the province due to the two-year-old Non-Smokers Health Protection Act that prohibited smoking in enclosed public spaces.
The implementation of the new policy took about three months to roll out. Although the decision had ultimately come from management, with no input from staff or union representatives, support was sought from local health agencies to communicate the benefits of the new policy. Speakers were invited to present on topics such as workplace health and second-hand smoke, and no-smoking stickers were distributed to staff members. Notices were posted around the station informing staff of the coming policy and the changes that would accompany it. Once the policy was in force, cessation support was offered to staff by assisting them in accessing programs in the community. This support continues to this day. Now the station is 100 percent smoke-free inside the building, but this does not extend to vehicles, and staff tends to smoke outside the front doors, protected by the overhanging roof.
Ten years later, it is easy to see many of the positive changes that have resulted, even without a formal evaluation. The station has seen major savings as a result of fewer repairs to the sensitive electronic equipment. The cost of cleaning the station has decreased, and staff members now take fewer sick days. As well, only about ten employees continue to smoke, although everyone's choice in this matter is respected.
Q94 FM, and all CHUM member stations, now boast a healthier, more productive workforce, and have gained considerable savings in cleaning and upkeep. The policy has stayed in place and there is never any question of it not being followed. One of the reasons that it was acceptable to staff at the time was because of its democratic nature -- it applied to everyone all the time, including management, and there were never any exceptions.
In the case of Q94 FM, management made the decision to go smoke-free without consulting the staff. The policy was well accepted, however, because of how it was implemented - over time, with support for smoking cessation, with equal application to all, and with the support and involvement of community resources. In addition to the important benefits to the health of employees, protecting valuable electronic equipment was an important rationale for implementing the policy.
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
Much of what makes the Red Shoe Pub special centres around music. Those who attended the pub's launch party were lucky to hear many accomplished musicians play and sing including John McDermott and Ashley MacIsaac. Every October the pub participates in Celtic Colours, an island-wide music festival that celebrates Celtic music and culture. And the name of the pub itself was chosen as a tribute to Cape Breton fiddler Dan Rory MacDonald who penned a tune of the same name, and contributed much to the music and culture of the island.
But of course, what really makes any pub special are the people -- the employees and the patrons. A kind of "home away from home" for many Cape Bretoners, the Red Shoe is a casual establishment that serves light meals. Music -- either the chance to play it or just enjoy it -- is the big draw for the people of Mabou. With only 11 employees in peak season, the Red Shoe Pub is not a huge enterprise, but it is a going concern.
As special as the pub was as a meeting place and cultural focal point, both the owner and the employees were concerned about the second-hand smoke they were being exposed to on a regular basis. And they had good reason to be. According to the Cape Breton District Health Authority, the island's smoking rate is higher than the province's average, which is one of the highest in the country. Also, second-hand smoke levels in bars are between three and six times as high as those in other workplaces, and food service workers have a 50 percent higher rate of lung cancer than the general population according to the Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada.
Rob Willson owns the pub. A warning from his doctor that just by working in the pub made him a smoker, and complaints from the employees about chest pain, shortness of breath, coughing and offensive smelling clothes underlined the need to take some positive action. At the time there was no legislation in effect in Nova Scotia that directly addressed second-hand smoke. The Smoke-Free Places Act that restricts smoking in most public places, but makes some exceptions for beverage rooms and lounges, came into effect on January 1, 2003. There were also very few businesses in town that prohibited smoking; a bakery being one exception.
Not setting out to be trailblazers or soapbox preachers, Willson and his employees held an informal meeting in November 2001 to discuss possible options. A majority decision was reached to go 100 percent smoke-free inside the pub. Only two months away, January 1 was chosen as the date to implement the new policy. This date would coincide with people's New Year resolutions, and not as many patrons would be affected as business typically drops off in the winter. A small, low-key advertisement was put in the local paper to inform the customers of the new policy.
The pub's customers have been very accommodating for the most part, and those few who were initially unhappy have returned. There have been no issues around the policy not being followed -- the regulars know the pub is smoke-free and new customers see right away that there are no ashtrays on the tables.
Business has not changed -- there have been no decrease in revenues. And in fact, Willson has observed that new patrons, who presumably stayed away earlier because of the smoke, are now making their way to the restaurant. Other benefits include premises that are now easier to clean, a small drop in insurance rates, and the national media attention this inadvertent yet precedent-setting business move has received.
Willson couldn't be happier with the results. A change he made for health reasons turned out to be a sound business decision as well.
This story from the Red Shoe Pub confirms what a number of studies in Canada and the United States have shown - pub, restaurant and hotel revenues and customer loyalty do not suffer in the long run from going smoke-free, especially when the establishment provides high quality service and a friendly atmosphere. With small businesses that are well known and liked in the community, the implementation of a policy to protect employee health can be undertaken in a short period of time.
Ottawa, Ontario
Popular wisdom has held that asking people with mental illnesses to quit smoking was just asking too much. Real wisdom is now showing itself as staff at an Ottawa psychiatric hospital have pointed out that patients with mental illnesses deserve nothing less than a smoke-free environment and support to reach a maximum level of both physical and mental health.
The Royal Ottawa Hospital (ROH) is a centrally-located, 207-bed facility that also serves as a teaching hospital for the University of Ottawa. It offers both inpatient and outpatient specialized mental health services for people with serious, complex and recurring mental illnesses.
There are 790 employees at the hospital, including doctors, nurses, and other health professionals, as well as staff who work in the areas of housekeeping, facilities management, medical archives, information systems, human resources and food services. The hospital itself is a mix of newer and old buildings spread across the campus, connected by a series of tunnels.
As dictated by provincial legislation, the hospital has been smoke-free since 1994, except for designated smoking areas for patients. These areas were separately ventilated, but staff and the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee reported that smoke was still present in the indoor environment. The City of Ottawa itself went smoke-free as of August 1, 2001 and the hospital was one of the last places in the city that allowed smoking indoors. A smoke-free pilot project had been running on-site at the Geriatric Psychiatry Day Hospital and the Inpatient Geriatric Psychiatry Ward, and they had not received any complaints.
According to many sources, including the World Health Organization, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, and the American Medical Association, people with psychiatric illnesses are significantly more likely to smoke than the general population. Staff at the ROH expressed their concerns around these issues -- they felt that psychiatric patients were already at a disadvantage in their recovery and that they were further disadvantaged if they smoked. There were strong sentiments that the patients at the ROH deserved the same respect and support to achieve mental and physical health as patients anywhere else. And that offering a smoke-free environment at the hospital would help patients develop the life skills they would need to navigate the new smoke-free city of Ottawa. Further, it was pointed out that many mental health patients can and have already been successful in quitting smoking.
Helping to move the issue along, non-smoking staff members lodged formal complaints with the hospital. This spurred the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee, which includes representation from various unions, to make a strong recommendation to the hospital's board of directors for the hospital to go 100 percent smoke-free. Detailed proposals and documents were brought forward and input was sought from various groups, including the consumer representatives on the board. The board accepted the recommendation in March 2002, acknowledging the dangers associated with smoking, and implemented a complete ban on smoking inside the hospital to begin July 1, 2002.
Between the time the policy was approved and the date it would be implemented, an education campaign was carried out across the hospital. Presentations were made to staff to help them become more informed about the policy and possible impacts to patients. These sessions ranged from a general one for all staff, to more targeted presentations for doctors and nurses around specialized issues such as drug interactions. All nurses and orderlies received a two-hour training session that dealt with best practices on smoking cessation and the special needs of psychiatric patients. Pamphlets for both staff and patients were also distributed. On July 1, the designated smoking lounges were closed for cleaning and attractive and friendly signs stating "The Royal Ottawa Hospital is pleased to offer you a smoke-free environment" were posted throughout the facilities. Implementing the ban in the warm summer weather helped make the transition easier. And because space is always an issue in hospitals, the old smoking lounges have found new and more positive uses.
Now that the ban is in place there are support measures for patients who smoke. The nicotine patch and nicotine gum, and therapeutic activities are available to in-patients who do not have privileges to leave the ward. An on-site cessation drop-in program for patients has been established and a similar program for staff is also being considered. The hospital also works closely with the city around cessation programming. Cigarette butt boxes have been installed outside and shelters were erected for the winter.
Staff have been flexible regarding infractions. Sound clinical judgement is used when enforcement issues arise and each incident is dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as all patient issues are. One problem has been the issue of some night staff members smoking with patients on the wards. This further demonstrates the importance of supporting staff in their efforts to quit, as well as patients.
Initial reaction has been positive. Proof of this is the way individual programs have managed the issue in response to patient and staff needs. The committee did a follow-up to determine rates of compliance two weeks after the ban was in place and continues to monitor issues that arise. The organizers believe that evaluation is critical and plan to conduct a formal evaluation process in the winter, six months after the ban was put in place.
The Royal Ottawa story shows the importance of considering both staff and patient needs in the hospital environment. Seeking input from all including various unions and consumer (patient) representatives on the board was important to the acceptance of the policy. This story also demonstrates the value in allowing sufficient time between policy approval and implementation to allow for information and education activities that prepare people for when the smoking ban is set in place. The discovery that some night staff were smoking with patients highlights the need to help staff with cessation as well as patients.
This presentation is designed to help employees and employers provide an overview on workplace tobacco policies, and to gain commitment and support for developing such a policy. You can use it with managers and groups of employees at your workplace.
It is adapted from Clearing the Air in Workplaces: a Guidebook for Developing Effective Tobacco Control Policies, developed by the Program Training and Consultation Centre.
Part A: Making the Case for a Workplace Tobacco Control Policy -- eight slides that describe the benefits of introducing a smoke-free workplace policy.
Part B: Understanding Smoking Behaviour -- two slides that provide some basic information on smoking and smoking cessation.
Part C: Going Smoke-Free -- ten slides that describe the policy options and a step-by-step process for developing and implementing a policy. Slide 14 is specific to restaurants, hotels and bars and may be only relevant to these kinds of workplaces. The concluding slide has a place for you to insert your contact information or personal message.
Part A: Making the Case
Part B: Understanding Smoking Behaviour
Part C: Going Smoke-Free
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
There are five key reasons for restricting smoking in the workplace:
Speaking Notes
Second-Hand Smoke
Speaking Notes
| Cost Factor | Cost | |
|---|---|---|
| Increased absenteeism | $ 323 | |
| Decreased productivity | $ 3,053 | |
| Smoking area costs | $ 20 | |
| TOTAL | $ 3,396 |
|
| Source: The Conference Board of Canada, 2006 | ||
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Source: "Conference Board of Canada, The Economics of Smoke-Free Restaurants (1996)"
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Speaking Notes
Some of the hyperlinks provided are to sites of organizations or other entities that are not subject to the
Official Languages Act. The material found there is therefore in the language(s) used by the sites in question.
For further information and resources on tobacco control and the workplace, please contact any of the following: