Smoking in work place - Essay Example

Smoking in the Workplace Pros and Cons Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 3 Introduction 4 Pros of banning Smoking in the Workplace 5 Cons of Smoking Bans in the Workplace 8 Conclusion 12 References 13 Smoking in the Workplace Pros and Cons Abstract Just three decades ago, smoking was a widely popular pastime for most adults in the developed nations. However, the discovery of terminal health conditions that were related to constant smoking resulted in a change in the way smoking and smokers were perceived in public. Work organizations were some of the first establishments to start vetoing smoking in their premises when it was discovered that passive smoking could affect non-smokers who had to work around smokers. Today, many organizations in developed as well as developing nations all over the world will not allow workers to smoke in their premises. In developed nations, there are even laws that have been passed to ensure that non-smokers do not suffer from inhaling secondary smoke from the cigarettes of smokers. However, there are both advantages and disadvantages to introducing laws that seek to contain smoking in workplaces. Introducing such laws also has different effects on smokers because this activity has different cultural meanings for different communities. Introduction In the United States, the negative effects of cigarette smoke were first mentioned in the the 1960s, by the first Surgeon General. This report initiated the gradual disenchantment with cigarettes among the members of the American public. Today, advertisements as well as cigarette packets are required by law to contain warning labels. In many developed nations, advertisements of cigarettes are also banned on television. There are also messages against smoking that are carried across many media channels which speak of the detrimental effects of smoking on the human body. According to Kim, Kamyab, Zhu, Volpp, Kim and Kamyab (2011) public health organizations in America spend millions of dollars on an annual basis in efforts to help addicted smokers to leave their destructive habits. Smoking is very addictive and many smokers try, unsuccessfully, every year, to stop their habits. They use books, group therapy, skin patches and even nicotine gum to try and stop their smoking habits. For those who cannot stop this habit, there is the very real possibility of having to contend with carcinogenic effects of ingesting the poisonous compounds that are found in the process of smoking cigarettes. Many medical authorities have also conducted a multitude of studies that have established that second-hand smoke can also affect the individuals who work around smokers. This is the main reason why so many laws have been passed to restrict smoking activities to particular places and away from public places where many people congregate such as work organizations (Prochaska, Velicer, Prochaska and Johnson, 2004). From the security standpoint, smoking can endanger workers because cigarettes could be fire hazards. From a perspective of productivity, smoking could cause lower productivity due to causing irritation which distracts other workers. However, for most employers, the most negative thing about smoking is that it increases morbidity in the workforce. Workers who are consistent smokers will suffer different medical disorders in the course of their working lives. This means that they will not be able to give their best performance in the workplace. The combined medical fees, which increase progressively as workers age while still preferring to smoke, will also be a financial drain on a company’s assets in regards to health costs. In addition, smoking can generate environmental hazards through the circulation of second hand smoke. Pros of banning Smoking in the Workplace There are different arguments that can be posited in favor of smoking bans in work organizations. In the first place, issuing a ban on smoking in the workplace is something that will protect the health of both the smokers as well as non-smokers. According to Smedslund, Fisher, Boles and Lichtenstein (2004) passive smoking can cause terminal illnesses such as cancer in non smokers. It can also have damaging effects on expectant women. According to Surindran (2004), it is not enough for employers to state that smokers may only smoke outside or in specific rooms because the second-hand smoke still filters back into the building. The only way to safeguard the health of all workers is by completely banning smoking. Implementing a smoking ban is also important, because it results in the improvement of the air quality in any room. In the workplace, this is especially important for the purposes of improving productivity. According to Wagener, Siegel and Borrelli (2012) some elements that are found in cigarette smoke, such as benzene, can actually result in episodes of dizziness and drowsiness among workers who are not smokers themselves. This means that a ban on smoking will effectively result in increased output. Banning smoking in work organizations is also something that is good for the security of the workers because reduces the chances of serious accidents occurring. It is very easy for smokers to accidentally drop in-extinguished cigarettes in the work settings. This could result in fires if there are additional flammable materials nearby. Implementing smoking bans is something that will also shrink an organization’s basic insurance premium. Smoking bans in workplaces are also practical because they reduce an organization’s cleaning expenses. Smoking is a procedure that results in the circulation of smoky or polluted air in a building. This then pollutes the working area. In addition, smokers also leave a lot of overflowing ashtrays which make the work setting unpleasant for other workers and, possibly, even the cleaners. Getting rid of all these products will mean that the company in question has to invest more in cleaning expenses. In working areas that support smokers, even the wall surfaces will be discolored faster than in other non-smoking environments. The areas which have many smokers also may have tarnished furniture such as scorched chairs or carpets that are caused by the burns from cigarette ends. Effecting smoking bans in the workplace is also beneficial for organizations because it results in the enhancement of a company’s image. For many clients, relating with officials from a company who chain smoke is extremely off-puting because it demonstrates the official’s casual attitude towards his or her work-related responsibilities. Smoking bans in the workplace are also important because they reduce the possibility of being litigated. If non-smokers contract respiratory disorders after working for long among smoking colleagues, it is likely that they will sue the company for jeopardizing their health by putting them in dangerous circumstances. Effecting non-smoking bans also ensures that companies do not have to deal with the existence of workers who have compromised bodies which are prone to infections of different types. According to (Wagener, Siegel and Borrelli (2012), it is not uncommon for smokers to quit their jobs because they develop complications that cannot support their continued functioning in their responsibilities. For organizations, effecting smoking bans in the workplace can also be interpreted as a strategy for reducing future costs. When organizations hire workers, they have to spend a lot of money in determining that they will train and guide the careers of their workers. For this process to go smoothly, it is important for the conscripted workers to be healthy. When workers who are smokers begin to fall ill, their companies naturally have to deal with the loss of knowledge and skills, which will affect future operations. This is not just because of the loss of the training investment, but also because workers are less likely to benefit from job satisfaction. According to Eadie, MacAskill, Heim and Hastings (2010), when an organization’s workers possess a strong sense of personal health, they are more likely to register considerable improvements in terms of their allotted tasks. This then results in an improved corporate image that is a critical part of attracting valuable and skilled employees as well as potential investors. The more an organization is committed to the welfare of its workers, the more esteemed it becomes among its its client base as well as in the general population. Organizations which provide smoke-free areas of work are perceived as being the best places to work in. Cons of Smoking Bans in the Workplace Essentially, there are no laws that stipulate that workers who are accustomed to smoking are not allowed to partake of their favourite hobby in any place they choose to. Indeed, in some states in America, as well as European nations, there are even discrimination laws which assert that employers do not have the right to refuse to employ potential workers due to the fact that they are smokers. Smokers are not to be punished for engaging in this habit. Moreover, in the modern era’s obsession with health practices, the habit of smoking has been demonized to a great extent. According to Eadie, MacAskill, Heim and Hastings (2010) defending workers who happen to be smokers is an unrewarding task in the present day’s politically correct settings. While it is only fair to determine that smokers have to be made to understand that they have to practice their hobby in ways that do not inconvenience other workers, the bans that are being effected in many workplaces actually surpass the expectations of reasonable public plans created to deal with any health-related public issues. There are different reactions to the habit of smoking in developed and developing nations. In developed nations, smoking is widely recognized as an extremely dangerous habit that causes the deaths of the majority of individuals who attempt it; while also adversely affecting the health of their family members and co-workers. Western governments have invested in the education of their citizens as to the dangers of engaging in smoking for more than three decades. In developing nations, the situation is considerably different. In many third world nations, smoking is regarded as being a trendy habit that is indicative of the upward mobility of the user. This was an attitude that was espoused in American society in the fifties and forties. In addition, cigarette manufacturing companies that have been banned from outrightly advertising their products in developed nations have invested deeply in advertising operations in developing nations. This means that their investments in the governments of developing nations means that they cannot openly censure the habit of smoking, or even alert their citizens about its dangers with the same openness that is done in the developed nations. This has resulted in smoking, as a habit, becoming extremely popular in many third world nations. Effecting rules against the habit of smoking, in such nations, would be extremely hazardous, because it would not gain a lot of support from the local government or even the workers. In developed nations, where the citizens have already made a conscious decision to expunge this habit from all public settings, government-led or even organization-related programmes that are formed for the purpose of checking the habit of smoking in the working places would be more beneficial. There are different reasons why effecting smoking bans in public places such as work environments may not be the best way to deal with the issue of containing the pollution that is caused by smoking. In the first place, smoking bans may result in some measure of resentment being experienced by smokers (Wagener, Siegel and Borrelli, 2012). For persons who are addicted to cigarettes, the implementation of smoking bans in the workplace is unreasonable; and can result in feelings of victimization. This could severely affect the company in question if the smokers happen to be the people who work hardest, r handle the most sensitive tasks in the company. Effecting smoking bans could also adversely affect workers who are addicted to this habit as well as the company. Smoking bans are not likely to stop regular smokers from partaking in their favourite habit. It just means that they will have to move further away from the areas in which they work when they want to smoke (Bauer, Hyland and Li, 2005). This could mean that there will be more lost man-hours, which then reduces productivity. If there are no laws banning smoking in the workplace, the smokers will not have to move away from their posts. They will still be able to use computers, answer telephones, or even handle machinery on time. Cigarette breaks also encourage behavior that is not conducive to realizing corporate objectives. For instance, once the workers who are smokers go outside to have a smoke, they will be more tempted socialize and chat with others over long periods of time; thus affecting their delivery of the expected results. This then affects the way in which non smokers relate with the smokers as well as the organization’s executives. Non-smokers easily develop a feeling of being victimized when they are not able to benefit from regular ten or fifteen minute breaks, in the same way that smokers do. This means that there will be ensuing antagonism between the smokers and non smokers. The subject of effecting a ban on the entire process of smoking is not easy to realize. According to Coleman (2004) many individuals presume that once the local government passes regulations forbidding the habit, the problem will be easily solved. While it is easy to see why many believe that this is something that will work in principle, it is unlikely that it will be practical. The reality is that the use of government inspired anti-smoking regulations would not be as effective as those which are instigated by the organizations which are affected. In the first place, national or local governments tend to come up with laws that are of the ‘one-size-fits-all’’ variety. This means that the government bans will extend to all workers across the board. It will not differentiate between workers who turn to this habit to relieve stress due to poor working conditions and those who are more affluent and practice the habit as a hobby. According to Bauer, Hyland and Li (2005) there are many older workers from the 50s and 60s who worked with smokers and were not unduly affected by it. However, the publicity given to the practice in recent times has caused younger generations of workers to develop fears that their health will be compromised if they work near smokers, even though this may not necessarily be true. The organizational heads are usually more effective when coming up with rules concerning the practice of smoking. Modern managers understand that different workers have different requirements for working in the most optimum environment (Bauer, Hyland and Li, 2005). For non-smokers, the best environment is the one which is not tainted by smoke in any place. However, for the smoker, working among fellow smokers is the best environment for realizing corporate as well as personal career goals. In addition, organizational heads are also usually in the best position to determine whether to implement programs that recognize the rights of both smokers and non-smokers. For instance, even though an organization wishes to have only non-smoking employees, it may not have the financial capital to effect this reality. In addition, some of its best performers may also be smokers; which means that the company cannot afford to jeopardize its relationship with its star performers while still maintaining its position as a force to be reckoned with in its particular industry. This means that if the organization makes the decision to implement a smoking ban, it will have to invest heavily in creating a place where smokers are well able to engage in their favorite past time. Employees also have to take into consideration the different effects that their smoking bans will have, before seeking to implement any policies. Conclusion Even though, for many, there appear to be more benefits to be gained by implementing smoking bans in the workplace, than in not implementing them, there will always exist a disadvantage to forcing employees to abide by limitations that are set by a company. All employees have rights that have to be observed by their employers; whether or not the latter have cause to dislike their personal habits or not. However, as long as workers keep smoking in the course of their working hours, their non-smoking counterparts will likely feel that their health is in danger of being compromised due to the personal habits of other individuals. This could adversely affect an organization’s bottom line. To cater to the needs of both groups of workers, organizational head have the responsibility of ensuring that they come up with solutions that will be accepted by both groups. References Bauer, J. E., Hyland, A., & Li Q. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of smoke-free worksite policies on tobacco use. American Journal of Public Health, 95(6), 1024-9. Coleman, T. (2004). ABC of Smoking Cessation, Use of Simple Advice and Behavioural Support. British Medical Journal Clinical Review, 328, 631-633. Eadie, D. R., MacAskill, S. G., Heim, D., & Hastings, G. B. (2010). Responding to change: how did bar workers adapt to the smoke-free legislation in Scotland? International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 20(1), 13-26. Kim, A., Kamyab, K., Zhu, J., Volpp, K., Kim, A., & Kamyab, K. (2011). Why are financial incentives not effective at influencing some smokers to quit? Results of a process evaluation of a worksite trial assessing the efficacy of financial incentives for smoking cessation. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 53(1), 62-67. Prochaska, J., Velicer, W., Prochaska, J.M., & Johnson, J. L. (2004). Size, consistency and stability of stage effects for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviours, 29, 207-213. Smedslund, G., Fisher, K., Boles, S. M., & Lichtenstein, E. (2004). The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation programmes; a meta-analysis of recent studies. Tobacco Control, 13(2), 197–204. Surindran, S. (2004). Effect of public smoking ban in Helena, Montana- Can law really make a difference? British Medical Journal, 328, 1379-1380. Wagener, T., Siegel, M., & Borrelli, B. (2012). Electronic cigarettes: Achieving a balanced perspective. Addiction, 107, 1245–1548. Read More