No Smoking

Teresa Schmidt

Helen McCarthy worked for the Department of Social and Health Services for the state of Washington for over ten years. At work she was regularly exposed to tobacco smoke. A nonsmoker, Helen complained to her superiors about the smoke, but no arrangements were made to help her. Eventually, Helen developed obstructive lung cancer. (Scott 13)

At first, one may think that Helen's is a rare and unusual case. However, there is an increasing number of nonsmokers throughout the country who suffer illnesses from or are simply tired of being exposed to tobacco smoke on the job. There is, in addition, an increased recognition of the right of employees to work in a smoke-free environment. Due to the awareness of nonsmokers' rights, some companies have implemented smoking policies in an effort to provide a more healthy and more productive workplace. While no-smoking policies offer a good start to an improved work environment, there should be a ban on smoking in the workplace to ultimately get rid of all smoking on the job.

On-the-job smoking is a hot issue for both smokers and non-smokers, and many managers now see smoking as a productivity problem. Although opponents question whether smoking affects one's productivity, it has, in fact, been proven that a smoker costs a company, both medically and in productivity, more than a nonsmoker. According to William Weis, an associate professor in the Albers School of Business at Seattle University, a "smoking employee costs his or her employer an estimated $5,740 more annually than a nonsmoking employee" (Collison 80). These costs include absenteeism (which is 50 percent greater for smokers), medical care, lost earnings, insurance, damages, and the health impact (Collison 80). Absenteeism, and absence due to smoking breaks, is but one of the productivity problems, yet it accounts for a great deal of employer costs. Marvin Kristein, associate professor of Economics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook states:

There's a whole range of productivity losses (associated with smoking) that are well documented, not so much in research literature as such, but in discussions about all the time wasted in smoking rituals and smoking breaks. (Cain 3)

Obviously, when a smoker leaves his or her work station for a cigarette, it costs the company money and lost productivity. These, no doubt, are costs that can and need to be eliminated. It is senseless for an employer to have to pay these costs for a habit, smoking, that can easily be banned. William Weis says, "It doesn't make good sense to invest your money in a smoker" (Cain 3). Put simply, it doesn't make sense to allow smoking at the workplace when it cannot benefit the company and only causes increased costs to the employers.

In addition to the factor of productivity, the legal aspect of a smoking ban must be considered. Opponents to a smoking ban insist that it infringes on their right to smoke. However, on the part of the nonsmoker, the right to a smoke-free workplace is greater. In addition, employers must provide a safe workplace for all employees. Jim Collison, President, Independent Small Business Employers, explains: "Employers should remember that from a strictly legal standpoint, they are obligated under common law to provide a safe and healthy working environment for employees" (81). It can easily be seen that if smoking is allowed, a safe environment cannot be provided. In some instances, "Nonsmokers have sued successfully under the common law ... and have won workers compensation cases, unemployment compensation and disability insurance payments and other benefits" (Fisher 54). Such cases of non-smokers suing their employers successfully are not uncommon. As nonsmokers assert their right to breathe clean air, more cases occur, and it is becoming obvious that there needs to be a smoking ban to protect all employees. Only where there is a ban on smoking can there be a safe and healthy working environment.

When discussing the issue of smoking at the workplace, perhaps the most important aspect is the health risk smoking causes to both smokers and nonsmokers. It was proven in 1964 that smoking is, in fact, linked to lung cancer, and in 1986 Surgeon General C. Everett Koop warned further that involuntary smoking can cause lung cancer and other illnesses in healthy nonsmokers (Involuntary Risk 64). Involuntary smoking can be defined as simply breathing in the vicinity of people with lit cigarettes in enclosed areas (Involuntary Risk 64). Anyone who has been with a smoker indeed knows that in addition to lung cancer, their smoke can also cause eye irritation, coughing, headaches, and throat soreness. While eye irritation may seem trivial to some smokers, it nonetheless is a problem that occurs on a daily basis in offices and break rooms and can, eventually, lead to greater health problems. Employees who do not smoke should not be subjected to the risks of involuntary smoking and need to be able to work in a safe environment. Surgeon General Koop states that "the right of the smoker stops at the point where his or her smoking increases the disease risk of those occupying the same environment" (" Involuntary Risk" 64). Ultimately, the only way to ensure a risk-free environment for workers is to ban smoking completely at the workplace. By doing so, the health of many people can be preserved, and the number of those who suffer from the tragedies of smoking-related illnesses will decrease.

Many opponents of a smoking ban at the workplace believe that smoking simply isn't a problem. One manager stated that "smoking is not a problem because a small percentage of our employees are smokers and these people are considerate, careful smokers" (McKendrick 12). What needs to be understood is that any smoking cannot be considerate or careful. The fact is, smoking is a health risk and can cause serious illnesses. Those who feel smoking isn't a problem are simply closing their eyes to the rights of those who don't smoke. In addition, they are ignoring the statistics that prove that smoking is a health risk.

The most serious argument of the opponents is that banning smoking at the workplace is a form of discrimination. Opponents charge that it is a personal choice if an individual chooses to smoke, and by banning smoking, employers discriminate against smokers. However, employers do have the legal right to discriminate against smokers. William Weis explains that "workers have no rights to smoke or sing or whistle or play the piano in the workplace" (Collison 81). Ultimately, employees have no right to do anything that might cause harm to another employee, and this includes smoking. Smoking is indeed a personal choice, but where it endangers another, at the workplace, it needs to be banned.

After working at a small retail store for over two years where there was only one break room for both smokers and nonsmokers, I can attest that smoking is simply unacceptable in the workplace. It seemed that the majority of the employees where I worked smoked, and there was not a day when I didn't come home from work smelling of tobacco smoke. A nonsmoker, I often chose to skip my breaks because I could not stand sitting in a smoke-filled room. My eyes constantly watered, itched, and reddened from the tobacco smoke. For those of us who did not smoke, the break room, instead of being a place to relax for a bit, was a disgusting, ash-filled room. The manager insisted she could do nothing. However , this is not true. With a smoking ban, break rooms like mine and offices and break rooms everywhere can become clean, safe, healthy, and more productive. The choice to smoke is indeed a personal one. However , at the workplace, where it endangers the health of others and hinders productivity, smoking needs to be banned. Perhaps if there had been a smoking ban, Helen McCarthy would not have developed lung cancer, and I might have enjoyed my job more. With the support of a ban on smoking at the workplace, employees can enjoy cleaner, healthier, and more productive lives and careers.