How Banning Smoking Can Affect an Individual or Customer at Workplace - Research Paper Example

HOW BANNING SMOKING CAN AFFECT AN INDIVIDUAL OR AT WORKPLACE? of affiliation submission Executive summary With the saying, “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” the issue of smoke free workplaces, bars, and restaurants has no better comparison. For the majority nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace, bars and restaurants, the ban comes with celebration. However, for the smokers, bar and restaurant owners this is poison to their business. It is at this point that the bar and restaurant owners and other opponents to the law have to swallow the bitter pill and stop arguing with scientific facts. Simply put, innocent employees and citizens in public places like beaches, bars, and restaurants deserve clean air for their lungs’ sake. The results from this paper indicate that most employees in smoke-free workplaces would not support the construction of smoking rooms since this is not enough to guarantee secondhand smoke free outdoors environment. The discussion also supports that smoking rooms in areas like airports are never leakage free, which means that the outdoor contamination is still present. In order to have a smoke free room, the recommendation is that the business put account leakage free room, with proper ventilation to allow smoke removal and avoid indoor secondhand smoke exposure in the rooms. Table of Contents Executive summary 2 1.0.Introduction 5 1.1.Statement Of The Problem 5 1.2.Purpose And Scope Of Work 5 1.3.Sources And Methods Of Data Collection 5 1.4.Limitation Of The Study 5 2.0.Methods And Procedures Used 6 3.0.Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis 6 I.What experiences have other companies had with adapting to the new non-smoking laws? 7 II.Is building a smoke room an appropriate solution for employees and customer? 7 III.If we move ahead, should we use a “business-class” to network such as social text or a consumer tool like Facebook? 9 IV.How can we evaluate the success of keeping employees and customer happy? 9 V.How can we evaluate the success of a new smoke room? 9 5.0.Conclusion and Recommendation 9 Reference list 11 Appendix 12 List of figures Figure 1: survey results for 15 participants on four questions 8 Figure 2: Questions and Answers distribution 8 Figure 3: Distribution of answers based on those that agree, Neutral, and Disagree 9 Figure 4: the distribution of questions and answers for the survey participants including percentages in gender differences 12 1.0. Introduction With the saying, “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” the issue of smoke free workplaces, bars, and restaurants has no better comparison. For the majority nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace, bars and restaurants, the ban comes with celebration. However, for the smokers, bar and restaurant owners this is poison to their business. It is at this point that the bar and restaurant owners and other opponents to the law have to swallow the bitter pill and stop arguing with scientific facts. Simply put, innocent employees and citizens in public places like beaches, bars, and restaurants deserve clean air for their lungs’ sake. Conversely, the tobacco industry should stop their fight against smoke free laws while arguing that the consumption of tobacco products declines while these products are the main reason why admittance to hospitals for cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases is on the rise. What the tobacco industry is fighting for is ‘a live cut short thereafter’ unlike the smoke free laws that promote ‘living happily now and ever after’. One thing that to be clarified to the non-compliant smokers, restaurants, bars, workplaces and housing areas is that smoke free laws do not illegalize smoking. On the contrary, they only instill discipline on the practices of smoking to the sake of those who do not smoke and are probably not interested in the act or the smoke itself. 1.1. Statement Of The Problem Banning smoking has affected businesses in a positive way by drawing in individuals to a clean environment. However, employees at their workplace feel it is more convenient to smoke on work grounds. 1.2. Purpose And Scope Of Work The purpose of this study is to determine whether to build a smoke room for employees at their workplace and keep them satisfied or to continue supporting the government non-smoking laws. The study will continue to assess the impact of non-smoking towards employees and towards customers of the business. 1.3. Sources And Methods Of Data Collection One way of data recognition and collection is secondary method, reviews from published articles, web based studies, and social networking sites. Primary method of research will focus on an employee and customer survey to uncover opinions on how they feel about government non-smoking laws in places like restaurants, bingo halls, bowling alleys, etc. 1.4. Limitation Of The Study This study has several limitations linked to it. First, the timeline required to conduct it was very limited and this ended up affecting the sample size. With the short timeline, the sample size use included only the participants who had managed to answer the questions provided within the given time. In addition, the research involved an artificial environment. The natural; environment resulted given that the survey distribution was through online survey to employees in different companies within the nation and not to employees within the same organization. Additionally, the survey involved the use of standard questions and this links to structural bias especially where the data reflects the view of the researcher and not that of the participants. However, the study questions use Likert Scale, which makes the participants choices distributed amongst five choices. Additionally, data analysis is both quantitative and qualitative which improves results validity and reliability. Out of the anticipated 30 participants, only half or 15 participants managed to meet the desired timeline an indication that the sample size may not be representative. In addition, the results from the sample participants did not in any way include their emotions, motives, insights, opinions or views, which could have emphasized their choices. Conversely, the study only focused on the outward behavior, which leaves a huge gap especially since human behavior towards the non-smoking law is under investigation. 2.0. Methods And Procedures Used For this paper, the choice of research methodology is qualitative because given that the study uses a small sample to build theories. Since the study involves secondary sources analysis, the study acknowledges and used realism research paradigm while forfeiting positivism, constructivism and critical theory (Sobh & Perry, 2006). Positivism emphasizes on statistical generalization of knowledge about a given population through statistical analysis of observation of readily available reality. Towards the cause of this study, positivism is inapplicable since the study goes beyond mere observation and inference knowledge. Additionally, constructivism paradigm involves relating findings to a person’s perception of the world thereby establishing numerous constructed realities. However, in post-modern research, these views usefully, do not compare to the views of other persons. Critical theory paradigm comparatively deals with judgment of perceptions by their suitability to prejudiced dialogues and is not applicable for this study (Sobh & Perry, 2006). Realism paradigm, which this study utilizes, involves extensions of findings from two studies through analytical generalization that demonstrate the manner in which empirical findings of study venture nestle in theories. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to explain the design of realism research that can assist in building knowledge regarding external reality of smoke free workplace environment. Fundamentally, the paper argues that working within realism requires procedures that differ from those used in positivism, critical theory, and constructivism. Another crucial qualitative analysis method used is survey. Survey method usage in this study aims at collecting data from a sample of 30 random participants who are employees within smoke free workplaces within United States (Jackson, 2014). The survey involves sending questionnaires to participants through email. Each participant received four close-ended questions of a Likert-type scale for ease of statistical analysis unlike open-ended questions with varying responses that makes it hard to analyze. This method is preferred over face-to-face method since participants are free to state their views without the concern on the researcher’s reaction. However, there are still high chances that these participants will try to offer socially acceptable answers resulting to study bias. However, in order to define knowledge regarding external reality of the impacts of smoke free workplaces within realism paradigm, the development of explicit principles for data analysis and reporting occurs (Sobh & Perry, 2006). The development of prior theories will arise from the analysis of data obtained from the survey and compared to other people’s research. 3.0. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis First, the paper covers the introduction chapter which anises the problem statement, purpose, and limitation the study. Next in line is the research methodology, which analyses realism method for exploring the two selected secondary sources and the survey method used to gather information from 30 randomly selected participants. The research methodology chapter paves way for the analysis of the discussion of primary and secondary research chapter where accumulation of evidence regarding each factor of scope will occur and support for recommendations or conclusions provided. The conclusion and recommendations chapter summarizes the main study ideas and offers the recommendations arrived at. In this section, any causes of actions listed. Finally, the paper will include reference page followed by an appendix where a copy of the survey and a tally of the survey results in form of numbers and percentage provided. 4.0. Blended Discussion Of Primary And Secondary Research I. What experiences have other companies had with adapting to the new non-smoking laws? In this study, one of the examined workplace was the hospitality employees in bars and restaurants (lawhorn, et al., 2013). For the non-smoking employees in the hospitality industry like casinos and bars where employees are exposed to high indoor nicotine, the consequence is increase in health risks for chronic diseases like lung cancer. Consequently, the implementation of new non-smoking laws in the hospitality industry result to improved health of the hospitality industry employees. According to Lawhorn, et al. (2013), the best practices as required by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention emphasize on comprehensive approaches that result to the greatest benefits for on communities. These best practices result to smoke free workplaces that improve health, minimize the rates of smoking, minimize exposure to SHS and improve air quality with no adverse economic impact on the industry. Lawhorn, et al. (2013) demonstrates that confidentially, the implementation of these policies has not been an issue given that data collection involved employees who consented to have their saliva sampled for nicotine level evaluation. A second study is by Verdonk-Kleinjan, Candel, Knibbe, Willemsen, & Vriew (2011) that focuses on the impact of defining tobacco control measures thruogh implementing workplace smoking ban and two tax increments on all tobacco products. In order to demonstrate workplace benefits, the study explores the impact of the combined control measures is examined in both the employed and non-employed populations between 16-65 years. For the working smokers, the number of consumed cigarrettes decreased from an average of 15.0 cigarrettes daily to 13.8 after the intervention. For the smokers without employement, there was no change in the number of cigarrettes consumed daily. On the overall, the total consumption among the unemployed decreased by 16.3% compared to 4.4% amongst the non-smokers. As a result of the reduction in the number of cigarettes consumed daily by the working employees, the result is that non-smoking employees will enjoy the benefits of smoke-free air indoors and outdoors. The reduction of secondhand smoke exposure in workplace outdoors implies that workers health is facilitated. In netherlands, the regulation of these non-smoking workplace policies has never been an issue on confidentiality given that more peoople continue to demand smoke-free establishments. This was consistent with Cancer Action Network (2012) some of Bowling Propriators’ Association of America (BPAA) were voluntarily going smoke-free while some of the bowlers chose not to bowl due to smoky environments. II. Is building a smoke room an appropriate solution for employees and customer? The purpose of the survey was to evaluate whether or not the establishment of a smoke room is an appropriate solution for customers and employees in workplaces where smoke-free air act is in place. The survey questions were sent to 30 random participants where only 15 responded within the given timeframe with only six female and nine males responding. The survey had only 50% of the intended sample responding with 60% male and 40% female. From the survey, only 33.33% of the survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that constructing a smoke room will be beneficial to the business while 46.66% believed that the smoke room would be a poor decision especially at a time when some businesses voluntarily embraced smoke-free law. However, 20% did not agree or disagree on the matter. When asked about the impact of the smoke room on their attitude, 20% agreed that having the smoke room would result to improved attitudes for employees who would occasionally take a quick break to the room and smoke. However, 60% disagreed the presence of a smoking room would be of any consequence to their attitude while 20 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to have smoke rooms. The issue of whether or not having a smoke room would result to reduction in the number of customers drew sixty percent disagreement and only twenty percent in support that customers attraction will decline. In the overall, 53% are in favor that regardless of whether or not the room remains hidden and vented for people not to notice it is there, this is not enough measure to avoid harm to the business in anyway.   Questions Answers       strongly agree or agree % neutral % strongly disagree or agree % Total Male % Female % question one 5 33.333 3 20 7 46.667 15 9 60 6 40 question two 3 20 4 26.667 8 53.333 15 9 60 6 40 question three 3 20 3 20 9 60 15 9 60 6 40 question four 4 26.667 3 20 8 53.333 15 9 60 6 40 Figure 1: survey results for 15 participants on four questions Questions strongly agree or agree neutral strongly disagree or agree Total question one 5 3 7 15 question two 3 4 8 15 question three 3 3 9 15 question four 4 3 8 15 Figure 2: Questions and Answers distribution Figure 3: Distribution of answers based on those that agree, Neutral, and Disagree III. If we move ahead, should we use a “business-class” to network such as social text or a consumer tool like Facebook? From the graphs, majority of the people do not support the construction of a smoke room and in this case, business-class should be used to network with much consideration being the use of consumer tool likes Facebook. The costs involves in using Facebook for networking would involve little costs since a social media content assistant is the only resource needed. However, the addition of an odor free smoke room does not justify the costs since this would mean investing in the best materials to construct a room where no smoke will penetrate outdoors. In addition, it is evident from the survey that majority of the employees do not support the construction of the room. IV. How can we evaluate the success of keeping employees and customer happy? The success of keeping employees and customers happy can be evaluated on through can only be evaluated by ensuring that no employee is exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke and with a smoke room, the smokers will be exposed to the secondhand cigarette in the room. Consequently, this will increase chances of cancer, respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. The presence of this room will not make customers or employees happy. V. How can we evaluate the success of a new smoke room? In order to implement a successful smoke room, the business has to have in place a well functioning ventilation system that is always functioning well (Lee, et al., 2010). Then there should be constant evaluations and measurements of air inside and outside the smoking room to ensure that there is no leakage from the room to outdoors. The ventilation rate monitored to ensure that it is satisfactory for the number of people smoking in the room at any given time and considers the average area of the room. 5.0. Conclusion and Recommendation From the study, it is evident that most employees do not support the introduction of smoke room in business. On the contrary, most employees believe that having such a room would mean investing in an expensive project of dealing constructing a smoke room with often monitoring to ensure that there is no leakage and that the ventilation functions well to remove the smoke from the room. Despite the limitation of the survey sample, the survey population distribution involved both male and female employees and accuracy enhanced by lack of researcher’s influence on the participants’ answers. In order to promote a smoke free workplace, the business should have a clear cost and benefits analysis to evaluate the benefits that would arise from constructing such a room. The results then compared with the current financial condition of the business and the impact the room would have on attracting customers. Reference list Cancer Action Network. (2012). Smoke-free Policies: Good for business. Retrieved from American cancer Society: http://www.acscan.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/smokefree-business.pdf Jackson, S. (2014). Research Methods: A Modular Approach. New York: Cengage Learning. lawhorn, N., Liretter, D. K., Klink, J., Hu, C.-y., Contreras, C., Bryant, T.-R., . . . Diaz, J. (2013). Workplace Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Among Non-Smoking Hospitality Employees. Nicotine and Tobbacco Research, 15(2), 413-418. Lee, K., Hahn, E., Robertson, H., Whitten, L., Jones, L., & Zahn, B. (2010). Air Quality In and Around Airport Enclosed Smoking Rooms. Nicotine Tobacco Research, 22(6), 665-668. Sobh, R., & Perry, C. (2006). Research Design and Data Analysis in Realism research. European Journal of Marketing, 40(11/12), 1194-1209. Verdonk-Kleinjan, W., Candel, M., Knibbe, R., Willemsen, M., & Vriew, H. (2011). Effects of a Workplace-Smoking Ban in Combination with Tax Increases on Smoking in the Dutch Population. Nicotine Tobacco Research, 13(6), 412-418. Appendix   Questions Answers           strongly agree or agree % neutral % strongly disagree or agree % Total people asked Percent Replied Male % Female % question one 5 33.333 3 20 7 46.667 15 30 50 9 60 6 40 question two 3 20 4 26.667 8 53.333 15 30 50 9 60 6 40 question three 3 20 3 20 9 60 15 30 50 9 60 6 40 question four 3 20 4 26.667 8 53.333 15 30 50 9 60 6 40 Figure 4: the distribution of questions and answers for the survey participants including percentages in gender differences Survey Questions The construction of a smoking room will beneficial to the business. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree The construction of a smoking zone will attract more customers Strongly agree Agree Neutral Diasagree Strongly disagree 3. the construction of a smoking zone will result to employees having better attitude knowing they have a quick break room, more so during winter. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 4. Having a well-vented and hidden room is enough to avoid harm to the business in any way. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Read More