healthscotland.com

Workplace Smoking Policies in Scotland

6. Views of current smoking policies

• The qualitative study explored staff and managers' views about their organisations' current smoking policies. It examined their likes and dislikes about the policies and the reasoning behind this. In addition, there was discussion about the types of policies staff would like to see in their workplaces.
• Staff were generally fairly satisfied with the smoking policies that were currently in place in their workplaces. However, there were examples of non-smokers who were very unhappy because smokers were allowed to smoke near them. There were also smokers who would have liked smoking restricted to be in place to help them to quit or reduce the smell.
• Concerns were raised around health and safety, especially hygiene in kitchens. Staff also often expressed a desire for a more inclusive way of addressing the issue and for more consultation.
• It was clear that expectations of managers affected satisfaction. Staff expected leadership and clear rules about smoking, and that their managers should protect both smokers' and non-smokers' rights.
• There was a range of views about the best place for a designated smoking area, with a split between those who preferred an indoor room and those who would rather be outside.
• Staff in the leisure and hospitality industry accepted smoke as a normal feature of their working environment, but wanted rules to restrict customers' smoking at the bar.

6.1 Satisfaction with current policies

Staff tended to be fairly satisfied with the policies operating in their workplaces, whatever these were. However, it is likely that staff who were very unhappy with the situation (either because they wanted more freedom to smoke, or because they wanted a less smoky environment) would have left the company. There was one report of a non-smoker who had left a job because of the heavy smoking of other staff.

The dissatisfaction which was expressed about current smoking at work tended to relate to smoking policies (or practices) which allowed smoking rather than those which banned it. Where smoking was not allowed anywhere inside the premises, both smokers and non-smokers tended to be relatively satisfied. Smokers' demands in these cases were for sheltered areas outside, rather than for smoking to be allowed inside.

Where smoking was allowed in some areas inside, there were non-smokers who were very unhappy with the fact that smokers were allowed to smoke near them. This was particularly the case where, although there was no official designated area for smoking, a place (for instance, near an outside door) was used by smokers with the approval of management. Additionally, there were smokers who wished for more clarity about the policy where it was fairly informal, or who ideally would have liked smoking to be restricted further to assist them in quitting or to reduce the smell of smoke.

Where the current situation was of staff smoking in designated areas, most non-smokers were satisfied. However, some did say that they would like a total ban to eradicate the smell of smoke. This view was held particularly in those organisations where there were serious divisions between smokers and non-smokers, and where smokers were being inconsiderate in how they used designated areas.

Concerns around Health and Safety, particularly within kitchens, were raised in some case studies. Most businesses appeared to follow hygiene rules and did not allow smoking within the food preparation areas. However, there were some exceptions. One smoker who worked within the catering business was unhappy that the regulations were not being followed and staff were smoking in the kitchen.

"And as for smoking in the workplace, especially catering, I think it's shocking...because it's unhygienic I would say with all that hand to mouth...it should be an almost sterile environment in the kitchen shouldn't it?" (Smoker, 2-4 employees, retail).

Other Health and Safety issues, such as the presence of children, the hygiene of kitchen staff who smoked and the sight of staff outside kitchen doors, also affected how satisfied they were smoking with policies.

In some businesses, there was a desire for a more inclusive way of addressing policy needs. Smokers often felt that they were not consulted enough about their needs and, in some cases, that these had been ignored. Likewise, non-smokers worried about the implementation and effectiveness of policies where consultation had not been carried out.

"I would want to be doing some sort of auditing to ask specific questions...from the employees, what do they want, there's no point throwing something together if you don't get their views and opinions." (Non-smoker, 251+ employees, manufacturing).

The most positive situation seemed to be one in which staff were 'eased-in' to the idea of a new policy, consulted about their views and made more aware of the health risks. The expectations of staff themselves according to sector and past job experiences also affected the way that they viewed policies. As discussed previously, staff working within bars and restaurants accepted smoking as part of their working life, whilst views varied across other sectors.

One major factor in relation to satisfaction of policies was the expectations staff held about their managers. Staff's personal feelings about managers sometimes led to the use of smoking as a tool of defiance in relation to other issues. However, it was clear that employees wanted leadership from managers about smoking, and that they viewed it as the bosses' responsibility to introduce and enforce fair smoking policies. In some businesses, employees were confused as to why some managers, who did not smoke and vigorously disliked smoking, did not introduce or change policies to benefit the health of their non-smoking employees.

"He's a non-smoker...I've no idea, that's something I can't work out; I can't work out why he allows it... I can't see any reason why he would." (Smoker, 2-4 employees, retail).

Other factors affecting staff satisfaction with policies have already been discussed above, and include:

• provision for smokers and non-smokers being equal and fair; however, this was affected by physical and financial constraints, in particular, for small companies

• existence of a company culture; the larger the company, the more staff accepted a policy banning smoking inside
  
• views of the wider culture in society. This was often positive, leading to acceptance of society moving towards restricting smoking. However, it could also be negative, with some staff worrying about political correctness.

6.2 Creating division

The issue of a division between smokers and non-smokers occurred on two levels within the qualitative study. Inevitably, a split had developed in all companies where smokers went to designated areas or outside to smoke. It was often commented by those who smoked and those who did not, that the smokers' group was more social than the non-smokers'.

"It certainly divides, there's a smoking group and there's the outside group. I'm not saying that we don't all get on, but you don't interact the same with people that's sitting outside...you're not chatting about home life and things like that...We treat it as our inner sanctum. Anything that's said in the smoke room is allowed and cannot be repeated elsewhere...and a lot of people think that's where all the gossip goes on." (Smoker, 50-250 employees, retail).

For the most part, there was little ill feeling about this, with some non-smokers choosing to go with their friends to the smoking areas, in order to socialise with other members of staff. However, some case studies showed that negativity did exist within the two groups, where all staff had to share facilities or rooms, or where rules had been broken.

There seemed to be a range of reasons for such a split occurring. Firstly, there were cases where smokers and ex- or non-smokers were in direct conflict, especially when space was shared, or some smokers smoked where it affected non-smokers (such as doorways to staff rooms).

"We have a fight [about smoking] because there's one staff room...we used to sit next to the door, you would get the odd one who would light up at the table, but I'm not an ignorant smoker, I wouldn't smoke when people are eating...We are forever fighting about it in here." (Smoker, 50-250 employees, leisure and hospitality.)

In other cases, smokers resented not having what they viewed as adequate provision, for example, having to stand outside without shelter, whilst non-smokers had access to the staff room. This issue was apparent in case studies where policies were in the process of changing, or where new non-smoking policies had recently been brought in. Smokers in these cases felt that they were not being treated fairly. It seemed to be a particular problem if policies were introduced quickly without staff consultation, or where policies had been very relaxed previously. Occasionally, feelings of resentment were also related to underlying conflicts between staff and managers, with smoking becoming a focus for dissatisfaction.

Division was also created where different types of workers within the same business had different rules or provision. For example, in one case, managers could smoke in their office (as they were both smokers), while other staff had to go outside. Likewise, in a hotel, bar staff could smoke in the bar while housekeeping staff had to go outside.

6.3 Where smoking should be permitted

Attitudes regarding where smoking should be allowed varied with little consensus emerging among smokers or non-smokers. For example, smokers did not always want a designated smoking room and sometimes preferred to smoke outside. They felt that smoking rooms were often dirty, oppressive and too smoky. Those who were keen to quit also believed smoking rooms could encourage smoking. Smokers were also aware that such rooms had to be cleaned regularly and felt that this placed a burden on other staff. Conversely, some non-smoking staff said they felt sorry for smokers who had to stand outside in all seasons, and wondered if a designated smoking room would be the solution. It was generally agreed by those who wanted a smoking room that it had to be suitably equipped to deal with the smoke, whilst providing a pleasant environment for them to smoke in.

Some companies had designated smoking areas outside, either with or without shelter. Those who had been provided with a shelter were happy with this arrangement, and appreciated the social interaction which their designated area had given them. Those who had to smoke outside the rear of buildings had generally accepted this, although some did feel that some form of shelter for them would be a positive move. In those workplaces without a shelter, many staff smoked unofficially inside or outside the fire exit doors. The provision of a formal shelter might have encouraged them to smoke only in the designated area. Non-smokers appreciated non-smoking areas or staff rooms being made available to them, in particular when they wanted to eat.

Those within the leisure and hospitality industry were the group that wanted the most changes. Smokers and non-smokers in these workplaces often felt that they were subject to a large amount of secondary smoke. Although they accepted that a smoky atmosphere was part of their jobs and that customers liked to smoke, they hoped that designated non-smoking areas could be introduced, particularly around the bar.