| Telling Foresight
In the run up to the ban the usual predictions were being made. Firms, especially SMEs, were “ill informed” claimed employment law specialists and the insurers were warning against the fire risks from smokers carelessly setting light to more than their filter tips. But the notion of a careless smoker burning down national treasures is nothing new; think of the damage inflicted on the National Motorcycle Museum in 2003. The damage caused ran to £14 million and many priceless bikes were destroyed. The cause, according to the local fire brigade, was a discarded cigarette butt thrown down in an area clearly marked “no smoking”. There is little available evidence to show that the problem has got worse. Simon Briault, spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), has rebutted the allegation that firms didn’t know what was happening. “There was lots of publicity” he says. “The marketing campaign was very effective, a real ‘two thumbs up’ for that. The argument that nobody knew that it [the smoking ban] was going to happen was a non-starter—and there were no grey areas—you simply couldn’t do it.” And, as Briault points out, the signage was also free if you wanted it. There were no excuses for non-compliance. Perhaps the most telling foresight came from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI). Four weeks before the ban the CMI polled 600 managers. The result? Ninety-one per cent thought that the ban would have little or no impact and that the cost of implementation would be minimal. Interestingly, the CMI also found that 87 per cent of organisations already had a formal smoking policy.
|
It’s a year since the introduction of the smoking ban in England and the figures tell us that, on the whole, the ban has been a success. We’re generally being good citizens: in England, court hearings for breaking the law are barely into double figures, and the totals are equally low in Scotland and Wales, where the ban has been in operation longer.
With smoking banned indoors, smokers have simply migrated outside, and it is in accommodating these people that issues have arisen.
Bernard Crouch, independent workplace consultant, says that problems arise where provision for smokers has not been made, resulting in inappropriate places being used as impromptu smoking areas. This could be anywhere that is undercover, not part of the workplace, and not decorated by a ‘no smoking’ sign. In many places, smokers are simply standing right outside the main entrance doors forcing visitors to run the gauntlet when they enter premises.
Pro-smoking group Forest agrees, saying that a failure to make proper provision for smokers reflects badly on the organisation because it shows an inconsiderate attitude towards staff who smoke, and looks unpleasant when clients visit. But even where great efforts have been made, similar issues are arising.
University challenged
The University of Brighton comprises five sites and the indoor smoking ban predates the legislation, but the problems are typical of those faced by many organisations. Facilities manager Gavin Ford reports that people were standing immediately outside the buildings to smoke and, in bad weather particularly, were so close that the smoke would waft back into the building through open doors and windows. In some cases, when the group was large enough, this would be sufficient to cause the fire alarms to go off. To address the problem Ford says that focus groups, comprising smokers and non smokers were set up on each site. Their brief was to report back to the senior management team on the range of options open to them, and everything, up to a total on-site ban, was considered.
The favoured option was to create a smoking zone and on each site the groups tried to find a pleasant area so that the smokers didn’t feel too victimised. As it did not wish to be seen to be condoning smoking the university did not invest in shelters, but each smoking area was provided with benches, pole mounted ashtrays, and litter bins. On some of the sites it was not possible to provide a ‘nice’ area. Ford says that on one site four car parking spaces were removed to provide a smoking area, an action that led to its own set of issues.
Ford reports some success, but when the weather turned bad people were more reluctant to use the areas, the grass became muddy and people reverted to smoking just outside the buildings—from where they are moved away on a regular basis. Ford reports “trying it on and belligerence” from the smokers. He says the university had hoped for compliance and were taken by surprise by the numbers flouting the rules. It has been, he says, “a thankless task”.
| The Smoking Ban—What’s Next
For many organisations, the next logical step will be to completely ban smoking on site. This has already been carried out by a number of organisations. Pro-smoking groups are, naturally, horrified by this suggestion and the TUC has issued a statement reminding employers that “this act doesn’t ban smoking, just smoking in the workplace.” Forest say that the creeping introduction of workplace-wide bans is seriously undermining the morale of workers and managers alike and that a total ban would be “draconian”. So for organisations considering a wider ban the advice is to carefully consider what you want to achieve. Put aside altruistic aspirations and take a look at the purely practical issues. Do you have genuine health and safety concerns that smoking on site may lead to problems and will be worth the effort of policing effectively, or are you looking to take the paternalistic approach and encourage people to give up smoking altogether? If it’s the latter, be mindful of the words of the TUC, which says “you cannot force people to give up”. |
No ifs, many butts
The law does not require an organisation to provide a smoking shelter, and likewise there is no requirement to provide bins for cigarette ends. It is failure to provide the latter that is causing concern in some quarters.
According to Defra smoking-related litter is one of the most prevalent types of litter as measured by the annual Local Environmental Quality Survey of England. The results from the last three years show that smokers’ materials were present on 79 per cent of survey sites. Smokers’ waste, because of its small size, can be time-consuming and expensive to clean up.
It is also a potential health hazard and can be surprisingly long lasting, with a spokesman from Peterborough City Council saying, “Smoking-related litter is unsightly and difficult to clean up. The filters are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic, and can take anything up to 500 years to break down.” The government is planning to change the law so that employers can be fined if they fail to stop workers dropping cigarette ends on the street.
This legislation has yet to be formulated, but will impose another burden on the FM. Simply fixing an ashtray to the front of the building may require planning permission and if the building is listed, or of other special interest, such planning permission may not be forthcoming from the local authority.
Seeing the light
But what of the other impacts, that of the health of employees or savings from maintenance bills? Martin Frohock is deputy area FM for East Anglia NHS Blood and Transplant where a total ban was imposed on smoking about eight months in advance of the legislation. Unlike the problems experienced in Brighton, Frohock reports that he has had little difficulty imposing the ban, with the total of smokers caught on the Cambridge site limited to one contractor. He also believes that there have been savings in cleaning costs since the ban and he suggests that lower absenteeism rates give indications of a healthier workforce, with many on site taking the opportunity to give up smoking as the ability to smoke at work has decreased.
It may be too soon to fully measure the health effects of the ban in England, although early indicators are positive, but evidence from Wales suggests that 33 per cent of smokers are now smoking fewer cigarettes than before the ban with a 20 per cent increase in contacts to the Stop Smoking Wales service from smokers wishing to give up.
With hindsight many of the issues identified before the ban do not appear to have materialised and the Chartered Institute of Management was right when it predicted the smoking ban would have little impact (see box, “Telling Foresight”). [NEEL: be sure to include BOX]
The FSB accredits the publicity campaign for much of the success, and many organisations will refer to the consultative approach that they took, involving both HR and workers’ representatives. But perhaps the final word should go to Martin Dockerell, spokesman from the anti-smoking pressure group ASH. Dockerell believes the smoking ban worked “because smokers made it work.”
