This article was downloaded by:[University of Regina]On: 18 November 2014, At: 02:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England andWales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

EmployeeAssistanceQuarterlyPublicationdetails,includinginstructionsfor authorsandsubscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzea20

EmployeePerceptionsofSmokingatWorkJohn L. DalyPhD aa PublicAdministrationProgram-SOC107 ,Universityof SouthFlorida ,Tampa, FL,33620-8100,USA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Publishedonline: 14Oct 2008.

To cite this article: John L. Daly PhD (1998)Employee Perceptions of Smoking at Work,Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13:3, 47-58,DOI: 10.1300/J022v13n03_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J022v13n03_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effortto ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors makeno representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for anypurpose of the Content. Any opinions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not berelied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research,teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling,loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditionsof access and use can be found at http://

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Employee Perceptions of Smoking at Work:

Implications for the Implementation of Workplace Smoking Policies

John L. Daly

ABSTRACT, Three in ten American workers continue to smokc despite progrcssivc steps taken to eliminate smoking privileges from the workplace. There arc benefits from being sensitive to the needs of all workers when enacting new policies toward smoking. [Arrtcle copies ovoiloble for a fee fmm The Howorrh Documenr Delivery Senrice: 1-800-342-9678. €-mod address: gerin/o@hnworrh corn]

Smoking privileges are increasingly being challenged in the American workplacc. Calls for policy restrictions are coming from a number of sources including fcdcral, state and local policy makers, the scientific community, and health and medical associations. Many organizations have reacted to thcsc prcssures and have enacted smoking restrictions; others are in the process of fomuloting new policics. In all instances, enacting new policics requires sensitivity 10 the needs of both smokers and non- smokers as well as cffcctive communication to al l employees when any ncw policy is initiated.

Research findings from this work report on attitudinal diffcrcnccs among smoking and non-smoking employees toward the implementation

John L. Daly, PhD, is Associate Professor of Public Administration, Public Administration ProgrnISOCIO?, University o f Suuth Florida, Tampa. FL 33620-8 100. E-mail: daly@luna.cas.usf.edu

The author wishes to express his ganritude to Mr. R. Carl Chcatham. City (Manager Cur the City of Winter Haven, Florida and to its emplayecs. Special acknowledgement is aimdue for Mr J e n y Parker for his assistmcc m developing the survcy and collecting survey data.

Employee Assislance Quarterly, Vol. I3(3) 1998 0 I998 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All nghts reserved. 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

48 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE QUARTERLY

of smoking policies within o middlc-sized city in central Florida. Smoking in the workplace is a cumplex organizational issue. It has significant impact on employee relations and worker rights. How employees, smok- ing and non-smoking, perceive each other and thcir needs is crucial to maintaining organizational harmony. Designing policies which consider the needs of all employees is critical to organizational success because effcctivcly implcmcntcd strategies will help maintam safe, healthy and productive working environmcnts. Instituting ncw workplace smoking initiatives also should be balanced and take into account the nccds of smokcrs and non-smokers alike.

Actions taken by management to control workplacc smoking have both benefits and costs to organiwtions and their employees. Smokers scck to minimize the personal restraints resulting from stringent anti-smoking policies, while non-smoking employccs call for a total ban on smoking privileges in the workplace and cite the negative health effects of second- hand smokc as primary justification for such action. The consequences of these competing forces create a dilemma for today's employer; restrict snioking and alienate employees who smoke, or allow smoking to contin- ue and risk the heightened potential for litigation, voluntary turnover and employee dissatisfaction (Petersen, 1995).

AMERICA'S TRevsFORMATION AGAINST SMOKING

America's perspective towards smoking dunng the first seyenty years ofthis century differs significantly from the way smoking is viewed today (Hilts, 1994b). Physicians, for example, no longer recommend smoking to reduce stress as was commoo practice as recently as the post-World War 11 decade (Hills, 1994a). A motion picture actor's sex appeal is no longer linkcd to smoking as was once the case and since 1971 television viewers and radio listeners are no longer confronted with cigarette commercials (Hilts, 1994b). These changes are in large pml the result ofour increasing knowledge of the negative health effects of smoking and second-hand smokc.

Today, mcdical research has determined that at least 43 different sub- stances in cigarette smoke can cause cancer (Hilts, 1995b). Abundant evidence cxists to link smoking with threats to individual health. Arecent- ly published study of 25 Massachusetts work sites in the Joumul ofthe Americun Medical Association amplifies the concerns for environmental tobacco smoke, i.e., second-hand smoke, on non-smoking employees (Hammond et al., 1995). Study findings demonstme that the level of restrictions placed upon smoking at work sitcs has a major effect on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

John L. Daly 49

nicotine concentrations of workers. The results indicate that non-reslricted work sites (ofice smoking allowcd) measure a median score or 8.6 u g h 3 (micrograms per cubic meler) as compared to I .3us/m3 at restricted smok- ing sites (smoking in dcsigicd areas only), and 0.3ugh3 at work sites that banned smoking (Hamond er al., 1995). Measurement? ahove 6.R ug/m3 of nicotine are the reference point where significant risk levels occur. Clearly, greater health risks exist for non-smokers when their employers allow smoking to prevail on the work sitc. Other health complications (e.g., heart disease, strokcs and heightened blood pressure, emphysema) also have been associated with smoking.

A comprchcnsive rcport on smoking conductcd in the United Kingdom recently reported that thrcc million people worldwide die every year (i.e., one person every 10 seconds) kern smokmg. If smoking trends continue it is cxpcctcd that thc numbcr will triplc to 10 million by the year 2020. Furthermore, the study reports that “of those [who smoke], about half will die prematurely in middle age, losing 20 to 25 years of their life expectan- cy” (Damton, 1994).

Vigorouseducation efforts seeking to convince Americans to quit smok- ing (or not to start) may be having positive effects. The percentage of Americans who have smoked cizareties in the past month was estimated at 28.6 percent in 1994 (US. DHHS, 1995). These trends are encouraging when compared with smoking habik during the 1950s when approximately half of the US. adult population snioked. Nevertheless, educational aware- ness must continue, especially for America’s youth who may be particularly vulnerablc to peer pressures and creative billboard advertising.

The trend in American corporations towards limiting workplace smok- ing began in earnest in the mid-l980s, and increased when a January 1993 Environmcntal Protection Agency final report warned of the dangers of second-hand smoke (hlliam, 1993). More recently anti-smoking advo- eatcs, led by David Kessler of the Food and Drug Administration, have stepped fonvard in “lightning rod“ fashion to challenge the smoking lobby for control of smoking policy initiatives. His call for treating tobac- co as a controlled substance has heen adopted by the Clinton Administra- tion. Efforts like these, as well as implementation of new laws at the state and local level, have had a significant impact on reducing smokers’ rights in the workplace. Today, virmally all organizations have placed some form of restrictions on on-the job smoking.

METHODS This study reports on the results of survey analysis conductcd in the

City of Winter Ilaven, Florida. Winter Haven is a community located

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

j0 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE QUA K TERLY

between Tampa and Orlando, with a population of 60,000 people. Its economy is based on agri-business, tourism, service industry and a retire- ment sector. In many ways, Winter Haven typifies other moderately sized Amcrican cities.

A survcy instrument was developed and forwarded to its 415 city em- ployees in Novcmber, 1994. Employees were advised that thcir participa- tion was voluntary and that results obtained would not be attributed to individual respondents. Authority to conduct survey analysis was ap- proved by the City Manager. Other than requcsting that employees parlici- pate in the survcy, littlc additional pressure was placed on individual employees to complete the instrumcot. A total of 268 usable surveys were rehmed, yielding a 64% response ratc.

The unit of analysis for this study was smokerinon-smoker. The survey was designed to address a number of questions relating to workplacc smoking issues. First, the research sought to determine if statistically significant differences existed among smokinglnon-smoking groups with regard to their perception of workplace stress and tension associatcd with smoking policies. In addition, thc research sought 10 ascertain whether workers’ productivity perceptions differed based on group affiliation. Fi- nally, the analysis sought to assess whether smokers perceived that their rights in the workplace had been dirninishcd significantly due to emerging workplace smoking policies.

Identifying points of misunderstanding and reducing the potential con- flict caused by perception differences among these employee groups is critical to organizational productivity. This is particularly so given the movement towards flattened organizational StrucLures which require great- er tcam based communication, coordination and cooperation. For these reasons, it is critical to identify haw smoking policies influence perceived quality of working life issues for all employees, and how they might interfcre with a centralized focus on work productivity.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Overview of Survey Results

Survey responses indicate that a number of interesting anitudinal diffcr- ences exist across these hvo employee groups. Utilizing Likert scaling tcchniques, respondents’ answers were analyzed la determine their level of agrecmcnt to a battery of policy restrictive, smoking related questions. A breakdown of responses to this battery of questions for Winter Haven city employees is prescnted in Table I .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

TABLE 1. Perception of City's Smoking Policies; Weighled Average Re- sponses 01 Smokers and Non-Smokers

Mean Scores' Srrmkers Non-smoker

01. I bslievethesmolcingpolicy herealwoI?istooslncl.

02. I believe that the CQ'S smokmg policy has caused melension nr a res .

03. Smdcers take more breaks a1 work lhan non-smokers

04. Non-smokes are more productive lhan srnaken. Q5. Employers have m nght 10 regulate smoking.

Q6. Adequate smohingareas are available at work.

P7. My work area is as smoke-free as I want il to be.

08. I wuld gel more work done if I did MI have to leave my work areato smoke.

Q9. I am mncerned wilh the health eftects 01 smoldng.

QlO I believe that "semnd-hand smab" 1s harrntul.

Qt 1 . I cnnsider myself a supporter of "smokeps' righls:'

Q12. Smahen have norights.

Qt3 Smokes havesunicient tights

2.54-

2.07"'

3.00"' 3.45"'

2.78"'

2.36" 1 89 2 57

2.08"'

2.lo"'

2.00"'

2.86

2.60-

3 41

3 62

1.94

2.49

3.35

1.98

2.06

2.84

1.45

1.46

3.03 2 88

2.05

. Survey Response Options: (Slr. Agree = 1. Agree = 2. Disagree = 3, Slr. Disagree = 4) .. p. < .Ol .'I D. c.001

As mght be anticipated, a number ofstatistically significant (p, < .OS) attitudinal differences existed when coniparing weighted average re- sponscs for smokinghon-smoking groups. Employees who smoked Celt that their organization's smoking policy was more restrictive (Q1) than did non-smoking employees. Furthermore, respondents who smoked per- ceived greatcr lcvels of tension and stress (Q2) with the pol icy than did non-smoking respondents. lbese results were expected as the conse- quences of the policy placed greater impact on employees who smoked.

Differences also existed across the two gmups wilh regard t o their pcrccption of work productivity. Non-smoking respondents were more l ikely to perceive a negative relationship between smoking and worker productivity (44) than were smokers. Furthermorc, non-smokers indi- cated that they believed that smokers took more time off lhan they did for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

52 EMPI.0YEE ASSISTANCE QUARTERLY

employee breaks (Q3). The data obtained speaks only to results obtained in one system. Nevertheless, managers and human resource specialists in all organizations should be sensitive to the potential for conflict among employees based on these biases.

The research also demonstrated that smokers were more likely to agree that employee had no right to regulate smoking (Q5). Furthermore, they were more negative in their assessment of the adequacy of smoking facili- ties in the workplace (Q6) than were nowstnokern. Smokers’ respouses also statistically differed from those of non-smokers with regard lo their concern about the elTects of smolang (QS), lhe elTects of “second-hand smoke” on individuals (QIO), their suppott for “smokers’ rights” (Q1 I), and their belief that smokers had sufficient personal rights (Q13). The naturc of differences in survey results across these two groups intimate that many smokers may perceive themselves to be “second-class citizens” in their organizational domains.

Response differences were not found to be statistically significant (p > .05) across groups whcn askcd if morc work could bc accomplished if employees were allowed lo smoke 01 the work site (QX), in their beliefs that smokers had no nghts (Q IO) and when asked iftheir work area was as smoke-free as desired (Q7).

Respondent feedback overwhelmingly indicated attitudinal and per- ceptual differences across employee groups based on group affiliation. Furthermore, the strength of separation in survey responses indicated the potential for increased conflict, tension and stress among employees when policies relating to smoking privilcgcs arose. Thus, organizations should be mindful lo act in the interest of all employees when policy changes are necessitated. Organizational leaders can meet this obligation by remaining sensitive to the needs of both employee groups.

Smoking Restrictions and Workplaee Sfress

Use of tobacco, coffee, alcohol and illicit drugs while on the job may be due to an employee’s chemical dependency, caused by a desire to reduce work boredom, or simply used as a means for reducing the slress associated with one’s job. Irunically, buch practices frequently exacerbate the individual’s problems rather than affording a beneficial outcome.

Once one is accustomed to smoking, the craving for nicotine is dimcult to control even while at work. Institutional barriers to smoking, at one’s desk or on the job site, force smokers to seek areas where consumption is allowed. In many businesses and industrial settings, there are designated areas for smoking. Tn the state of Florida, Florida’s Clean Indoor Air Act (Florida Statute Chapter 386.20 I) prohibits smoking inside most Florida

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

John L. Do/>, 53

public facilities. Smoking is not allowed at one’s desk or iu areas open to thc public. Designated smoking areas, while allowed by this legislation, are rare given the restrictive nature of the law. Virtually all public em- ployees who smokc are required to exit the work site and smoke outdoors. Substantial losses o f time occur as a result of this policy. In high rise public facilities, the productivity losses associated with locating ‘‘safe smoking havens” outside of one’s officc building are likely to be substan- tial,

Do smoking policies result in increased workplace tension and strcss as a result of tough regulatory smoking standards? Survey results from Win- ter Haven employces provide insight into this qucstion. Rcsponses to the question “I believe that the city’s smoking policy has caused mc tcnsion or stress,” are provided in Table 2. As thesc rcsults show, one in four smok- ers a w e d that thcir city’s policy caused incrcascd tcnsion or stress (26.9%) as compared to one in twenty (S.9%) for the non-smoker. Logical- ly, one would expect this to be the case as the impact of the restrictive smoking policy is more direct for smokers than for non-smokers. Never- theless, the results are surprising, especially from the smoking group. In this instance three-fowlhs ofthe city’s smoking respondents did not indi- cate increased tension and stressasrociated with a restrictive policy.

How might this unexpectcdly low level of lension and s e e s he ex- plained among smoking respondents? In part, the answer may be due to the statek Clean Indoor Air law. Employees who smoke surely find these restrictions of their right to smoke as disturbing. IIowever, it is more difficult to blamc fellow non-smoking employees and01 managemenl when an outside force intcwcnes and mandates action.

Mandates from outside sources (c.g., fcderal or state legislation), on the other hand, do not mean that corporate leaden can ignorc the implications of thcse restrictive policies. Officials should continue to be cognizant of the needs of both employees’ groups. One mcthod for moderating the

TABLE 2. Policy Creates Tension or Stress for Smokers and Non-Smokers

Twmion or Stress Yes No

Smokers 18 49

Non-Smokers 11 176

x2= 21 4, d t = 1, p < .QOOl. n =E4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

54 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE QURTERLV

etTectr of a restrictive smoking policy is through the empowering of em- ployees to decide when breaks are allowed. Such flexlbilityrequires coop- eration and communication among employce groups especially when job tasks require interdependent cooperation among memhers. Granting tlexi- bility for selecting hreak times may help reduce smoking related tension and stress.

The cxpectations in retum for this privilegc should be that each em- ployec (smoking and non-smoking) maintains his productivity while re- specting the needs o f fellow workers. In some organizations, coopemtion among individuals is suklicient to ensure that employee needs and produc- tivity cxpcctations arc mct. In other scttings, cmploycc empowerment is achieved by granting workers the oppomnity to take il smoking break bur requiring them to clock out and then clock back in upon thcir return. In same cascs. employecs utilizing flexiblc timc arrivc at thc office early 01 stay late in order to cnsurc that they have met their working hour obliga- tions. Such freedom of choice, however, will v q based on the nature of the work, the culture of the organization and the level of t ~ ~ t among employees. What might work well in one system may fail miserably in another one. Ultimately, organizational leaders must implement policy based on balancing employees‘ needs with the demands for maintaining a productive working enif ironment.

Perception of the Degree of PoIicy Restrictiveness

Winter Haven emplayces also were asked to assess their perception of the degree of restrictiveness of their city’s smoking policies. A logical expectation is that a bi-polar outcome would result; smokers would agree that smokjng policies were too restrictive and non-smokers would dis- agree. Employees were asked the following question, “I believe that smoking policies here at work are too strict” in order LO gauge their relative perception of the nature of the city’s smoking policy. Aggregate smokerhon-smoker responses to this question are presented in Table 3.

Survey results from the two employee groups proved to be statistically different. Smokers were more likely to agree that the policy was “too strict” when compared wilh non-smoker responses. The results were again surprising in that a majority of the smoking employees disagreed that their city’s policy was too strict.

What might explain this response outcome? Perhaps smoking cm- ployees’ beliefs about the policy were marginalized, because policy con- trol is imposcd by the state and not by the employer. While smoken disliked the limitations that the policy imposed, they were unwilling to suggest that the action was too harsh or to place responsibility for the strict

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

John L Daly 55

TABLE 3. Smoking Policy Is Too Strict; Smokers and Non-Smokers

Cigarene Smoker Yes NO

Policy Too Strict Str Agisei Agree

St,. Disagieef Disagree

28 17

39 1 69

x z = 35.9, df = 1. p Owl, n = 253

nature of the policy on their employer. Efforts to determine a rclationship between smoking intensity and perception ofpolicy strictness also proved to bc statistically inconclusive.

A small group of non-smokers (17) indicated that the city’s policy was too strict. One plausible explanation, that these respondents were non- smokers who had quit, proved to be inconclusivc as only four of the seventeen respondents (23.5%) had been prior smokers. A second plausi- ble explanation, that thesc cmployees felt sympathy for smoking em- ployccs, was also investigated. An assessment ofthe data sel indicated that eight of the scvcnteen non-smokers, (47.1%) who felt the policy was Loo strict, had family members who smokcd. No definite conclusions, howev- er, werc drawn given lhe limited number of cell responses.

The results prcscntcd indicate that a majority of the respondcnts in both smoking and non-smoking goups felt their city’s smokinl: policy to be reasonablc. This fmding might indicate that cmployees who smoke, alhail disliking restrictions on their personal tieedom to smoke wbcn and where they like, understand the need for such policy restrictions and are willing to abide by the organization’s restrictive smoking norms.

RELEVANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The findings from survey responscs of one population obviously have methodological limitation. Primarily, this is due to the inability to general- ize results to a broader context. Nevertheless, thc rcsults obtained here have interesting implications for organization leaders sccking to determine how best to proceed when considering workplace smoking rcstrictions within their organizations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

56 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE QUARTERLY

One observatioii derived from the research findings relates to the issue of thc legitimacy for imposing workplace smoking restrictions. Thc fmd- ings indicate statistically significant perception diffcrcnccs bctwccn smok- ers and non-smokers regarding employcrs’ rights to regulate workplace smoking. Smokers agrcc slightly (x = 2.78) that “employers have no right to regulatc smoking.” By comparison, non-smoking respondents tended to disagree moderately to this statement (x = 3.45). It is suspccted that the disparity between the response of thesc twu groups has been narrowed becausr Florida mandated workplace smoke restrictions. While employees who smoke may not agree with the policy, they will still be more likely to perceive that thcir employer had the right to regulate smoking when re- quired by law. It is ironic, but perhaps the case, that grenter pcrceivcd legitimacy in action exists when restrictive smoking policics arc mandated by sources external to the organization.

A second ohservation derived from this study is that greater stress and tension ossaciatcd with smoking may exist in those organizations that have not issucd policies rather than for those organiations lhat have developed policies. It has already been shown thal the perceived level of tension and stress from such policies is greater for employees who smoke in Winter Haven than for lhuse who do not smoke. Nevertheless, in those systcms where policies have been instituted, employees can refer to policy guide- lines for behavioral cues. However, employccs in organizations without policy standards are likely to incur higher levels of slress and tension because they are placed in thc position of vying for “policy” control. Where a no smoking standard cxists. policy detemunation would probably be established by the individual in charge. In this setting, it is likely that thosc sccking to smoke and those seeking a smoke-free work site will both experience heightened stress and tension associated with constant bicker- ing over the issue of smokers’ rights.

Once management has dctcnuined that developiiig smoking policies is warranted the process should begin with open and aclive communications with all employee groups. Clearly, the pain and suffering for employees who smoke will be disproportionately greater than for their non-smoking counterpart. This point should he taken into consideration, and cvery effort should be made to listen to and to acwmmodatc the needs of those employees who smoke. Actions such as designated smoking areas placed in closc proxlmity to one’s work site would be onc example of being attentive to the nerds of smoking employees. Relocation of smokers with other smokers, where practical, would also indicate an employcr’s effort lo consider this group’s needs. Other efforts such as smoking cessation and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

John L Doly 57

othcr behavioral programs designed to help employees to stop smoking should also be considered.

Policies that can be designed to protect the health of the non-smoking cmployee while preserving at least tlie semblance of nghts for smoking may well result in a win-win outcome for all concerned. However, if managcmcnt is forced to act where one party wills at the cost to the other, it is most prudcnt to favor the interests ofthe non-smoking employee. This would minimize the potential for future health claims and litigation as employers must providc safc and healthy working eiivimnment under OSHA’s gcocral duty clause.

Perception of workcr productivity should also be a cause for concerii based on the findings in this research. As mentioned previously, in orga- nizations where smoking is prohibited, e.g., Florida public facilities, smokers must “flcc” to open air settings, typically the neaxcst buildiug entry, in order to smoke. Often these areas are highly visible to both the public and the smoking employees’ supcriors and fellow employees. Em- ployees who smoke are likely to be stereotyped as individuals who waste precious time away from work smoking in these locations. In some instances, this certainly is the case. However, fair treatment of all em- ployees should be based on measurable levels of work productivity; not based on stereotypical impressions that are formed whenever others enter thcir offices. Non-smokers may be equally unproductive but spend their time drinking coffee in the hreakmom, socializing with other employees, reading materials unrelated to work at their desks, or talking on their telephones with friends and family. Productivity should be measured not by location near oiie’s desk, but by outcomes that aid the organization in meeting its mission and organizational goals. Supervisors should be cogni- zant of this and attempt not to stigmatize workers bccause of a personal habit. Focusing on productivity outcomes and the employee’s work-re- lated contribution to an organization will ensure that equal treatmcnt IS affordcd to all employeessmokers aiid noo-smokers alike.

COIVCLUSION

Elected oficials and employers over the past three decades have begun to take progressive steps toward stemming smoking in organizational set- tings. These standards are necessary as they ultimately will help sustain the health and safety ofboth the smoking and non-smoking employee. It is still important to rcmember that approximately three in ten American adults have made the choice to smoke. These workers are important hu- man resource contributors to organizations. As a non-smoker, it is easy to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

5R EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE QUARTERLY

justify policy actions based on one’s own needs as being in the best interest ofall in thc organization. The argument has been made against thc implementation of such a paternalistic perspoctive, as it excludes voice for a sizeable minority of an organization’s workforce.

Care should also be taken to cnsurc that equitable treatment is gantcd to all when workplace smoking policy changcs arc considered. The deci- sions to be made may be eased through outside intervention. In these cases, policy mandates take away discretion from the hands of organiza- tional policy makers. In addition, it may relieve thc propensity Tor finger pointing and blame that occws when work site smoking privileges are relinquished. Prior lo the implementation of new smokmg policies, it is critical to communicate with one’s employees and listen carefully to their wants and needs. In such cases, the outcomc may still be the same; howev- er, those employees who lose previously held smokingprivilcgcs will still sense that their employer valucs thcir input and insights as much as for those who do not smoke.

REFERENCES

Darnton, John. (1994). ”Report Says Smoking Causes A Global Epidemic of Dcalh,” T%hr Arc?. York nmes (September 21), Section 8, 8.

Department of Health and Human Services (1995). “Nahonal Household S u n q On Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1994,” DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 95-3063, SAMHSA, Rockville, Maryland, 91

Hammond, S . Katharine ct al. (1995). “Occupational Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke,” Journal of rhe American Medical Associarion Vol. 274, No. 12 (September 27), 956-960.

Hilts, Philip J. (1994a). “Cigarette Makers Debated The Risks Thcy h i e d , ” 7’be New York limes(1une 16, 1995), Section A, I.

Hilts, Philip J. (1994b). “Grim Findings On Tobacco And A Decade Of Fmsrra- tion;’ The New York 7imcr (June 18, 1994). Scclion I , I

Pulliam, L. Lynne (1993). “Smoking in the workplxe: Developing a policy that works for your company,” Employee Relalions Law Jourrrol (Winter 1993/Y4), Vol. 19, No. 3,279-286.

Pctcrscn, Donald I. (1995). “No Smoking! The Arbitration of Smoking Restric- tion Policies,” Dispute Resolution Journal Vol. 50, No. 1 (January), 44-50.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 02:

10 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014