EUROPE

Club ponders anti-smoking laws

21 years ago

Spain has joined the increasing list of countries that prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces. Canada, Norway and New Zealand as well as certain states of the US such as California, Florida, New York and Washington have already enacted legislation, while in the UK, Parliament will be deciding the issue this year. In fact legislators are often lagging behind employers themselves, many of whom have already banned smoking in their offices and other enclosed workspaces.

Smokers caught between two contradictory elements

These workplace bans have driven in part by fears of the consequences of claims from non-smoking employees who contract respiratory illness or cancer from passive or second-hand smoke, and in part by employee pressure for a smoke-free working environment. Public opinion surveys in many countries regularly show that over 90% of employees favour a complete ban on smoking in their workplaces.

The TT Club does not cover employers’ liability in any of its insurance products and therefore takes no public stance on this issue; our concerns are not so much with passive smoking but with the fire hazard in warehouses and handling areas associated with carelessly discarded matches or cigarette ends. In some facilities smoking is only prohibited in areas where flammable products are being stored or handled, but in the Club’s view the ban should encompass all areas where cargo is being stored or handled. There is a substantial fire risk in all warehouses and cargo-handling areas, not just those dealing with flammable materials: one of the Club’s largest-ever fire claims arose because a consignment of cotton was ignited by a carelessly-discarded cigarette end. In this respect, therefore, we welcome the legislation. However we have one concern about smoking in operational areas.

The laws generally prohibit smoking in enclosed areas at work. In some countries this means that employers may not even provide a “smoking room” to which employees may go when in need of a cigarette. The nicotine-starved must go outside (and in California, at least 6 m from the front door) if they wish to light up. This is understandable in terms of removing this risk of passive smoking, but what if the atmosphere outside is too dangerous for people to walk around with a glowing source of ignition jammed between their lips? To reduce the fire risk in operational areas, it has generally been regarded as safer to provide workers with enclosed areas in which they can smoke. But, as an “enclosed working space” such areas may themselves be prohibited, even though smokers enter them voluntarily during rest breaks.

Workers are therefore caught between two contradictory elements of workplace safety law: they may not smoke outside because of the fire risk, but they may not smoke inside either because of the dangers associated with passive smoking. Extracted from TT Talk No.76