Posted By Stuart Hufton We are a social landlord and have had a total ban on smoking in the workplace or any other council premises. However, our employees and contractors have to visit and work in tenants homes where the tenant may well be smoking. While it would seem reasonable to ask a tenant not to smoke while people are working in the property, many of our tenants are not reasonable people! Apart from the genuine concerns about the risk, some staff are seeing this policy as a way of not doing work. Has anyone got any experience in this area or sources of information that may help me draft a suitable assessment and advice.

Posted By J Knight Yeah, right Rob, I suppose that since passive smoking only kills a few hundred people a month its probably not worth thinking about really. And Mr Clarkson is usually right (up where the sun don't shine:))! But Stuart, yes, we have exactly that problem. We believe that we cannot force people to work in a smoky atmosphere, whatever they do in terms of visiting pubs in their leisure time. We also ask people not to smoke when our staff are present, and are considering asking them to keep one room smoke free for care delivery (we are a care provider). As far as I know there are no easy answers to this, the whole issue was discussed at a recent NASHICS conference in Peterborough, and we didn't actually come up with solutions, only problems and ideas; though the smoking lead for a Lincolnshire PCT did take very seriously that we might end up issuing RPE to staff in this sort of situation, John

Posted By Fornhelper It's a toughy Stuart and as you may know a smoking ban similar to Ireland will be brought in up here in Scotland in the not too distant future. Our approach will be along similar lines of asking clients not to smoke but as you say they are not always happy to comply. I suppose there is the option of withdrawing the service provided but in a Social Care setting that could prove difficult. Being practical I would suggest the risk involved in being exposed to passive smoke for a short period of time would be fairly low but essentially we are still exposing employees to harmful substances and to do so knowingly would be difficult to justify. The same problem applies in Care Homes (these will be exempt from the legislation when it is introduced in Scotland) and you can imagine the difficulties in convincing (or even just asking !!) lifelong smokers who are residents in these to refrain from smoking. !!! Would be interested to hear the views of others on this. Steve

Posted By wesley james mason How good it is to see that so many companies taking the matter of passive smoking seriously? I am a non-smoker and think that a ban in public places is a good think, but one thing that baffles me is that us a H&S professionals advise our clients to do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce the risks to employees health etc etc...................therefore, in order for pubs/breweries to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act and Management Regs etc surely they must ban smoking to protect employees??? I am pretty sure that a majority of us (if asked by a client) would state that to achieve this and in order comply with this element of the law, they should ban smoking. People may argue that extractors can be used, but have you smelt your clothes once out in the fresh air, or even worse, the next day when you are hungover? Clearly these fans/exrtractors are innadequate. Therefore, how do breweries/pubs/landlords get away with it? If it was another substance that has carcinogenic properties such as asbestos for example........control measures have to be in place. I know that asbestos is an extreme example but the outcomes of continued exposure is much the same as continued exposure by bar staff/landlords. I heard a statistic on a national radio station that 1 person a week dies as a result of passive smoking, much of these being bar staff, waiters and even stand up comics! Anyway, I have had my say, but in response to the original post, It is difficult but I would recommend that when doing work (as I presume that this is maintenance work) they could open windows and explain that they have to for H&S reasons, this will probably please most tenants if they want more detail, maybe state that it is due to dust creation, aerosol use etc. By the way, I am not a complete anti-smoker and I agree with free choice and do not like being told what to do by the GM. But I oppose being forced to inhale second hand smoke when I go out for a drink or meal. It will be interesting to see how the 'non smoking law' will be enforced when it arrives. I know that I will use pubs more often WHEN it is banned, especially at lunch times as there is nothing worse that leaving the pub and coming away stinking of smoke. Therefore I avoid them. The complete ban is innevitable and I welcome it. Sorry if i've upset any smokers out there!! Imagine how much tax the GM would lose if you all gave up. This would result in all of our taxes going up, so maybe a ban is not such a good thing afterall.

Posted By Geoff Burt Can anybody help with the source of John's figures?

Posted By Geoff Burt Who was that?

Posted By Geoff Burt I'm sure you have already worked out where I am coming from on this Jack. I simply don't believe those figures apply to this type of work situation. An HSE inspector once said to me in front of a client and some of the workforce that 'one asbestos fibre can kill'. It is this this bandying about of emotive but unfounded statements that is just not acceptable if we, as a 'chartered' profession wish to retain any credibility.

Posted By Geoff Burt I've done that John M, but it doesn't mention passive smoking let alone attribute figure. What is your point?

Posted By Geoff Burt I think the point being made Stuart is that the tenants wouldn't necessarily co-operate with such a restriction. And I can understand that. Take an association tenant, 74 years old and paralysed down one side, never has a cigarette out of the one good hand. Trades come in for two days to fit a new kitchen and she is expected not to smoke all day. How do you deal with that? Thankfully by common sense, you open the windows and let the air flow through. NOT by putting clauses in tenancies.

Posted By John Murgatroyd http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6091 If you want to smoke, go on. If you think you can force an employee to smoke, even passively, then carry on. I'll wait for the legal action and laugh. How many solicitors are there going the no-win-no-fee route ? How many unions are there with loads of time and attitude ? Your concern for the 74 year old tenant is touching....tell him/her to go and visit a friend while your employees are doing the work. Even if the SMELL alone makes your employees feel sick it is enough. I await the smoking ban in enclosed public spaces, and more, with acute interest.

Posted By Daniel Stonehouse It is often easy to take one particular case, and in this instance a very sad case, and try to generalise. A simple risk assessment in the case of this lady would suggest that it was not reasonably practicable to remove the smoker, perhaps just a request not to smoke whilst the workmen were there, or to open the window. There will always be a risk of some sorts to all workers, minimising them as much as we can is all we can do. However in the vast majority of cases where workers will be required to enter peoples houses, it shoukld be possible for a little bit of reasonablness to be used by both sides. If the workman was to ask the householder if they would not mind smoking for a bit while he , say, fixes a door in a council house, if the tenant objects then i would say that the worker has every right to leave the property. If the workman was scared of dogs, for instance, the tenant would be unreasonable to leave the family rottweiler in the same room as the worker. It would be a question of respect for the worker and respect for the tenant and his/her private life. If a workman was to come round my house i would not pretend he/she was not there but do all i could to facilitate their work, just as i would expect the worker to respect my home.

Posted By Geoff Burt Thank you for your constructive comments John.

Posted By J Knight I haven't seen first hand research into this, but there have been several articles in the media which support my figure; the particular piece of work I was thinking of is discussed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4309613.stm; gives a headline figure of 11,000 deaths a year, over 900 a month. This also identifies the number of workers killed by passive smoke as 600 p.a. We can split hairs and argue, but unless we accept the reuctio ad absurdum that passive smoke hurts no-one, then all we are doing is 'arguing about the price', as the judge said. Tobacco companies spent years telling us that smoking was harmless; now they can rely on their armies of addicts to tell us that second hand smoke is no problem. I can't believe that, and it is vital that we take steps to protect the health of our workforce, whatever the social pressures. BTW, we don't have freedom of choice in this country, you're thinking of the USA, John

Posted By Rob T Just one point to add - when Geoff asked for the figures regarding passive smoking deaths - none of the protagonists were able to supply anything tangible (as usual). The main reasons for this is that there never has been a clinically proven case of passive smoking causing lung cancer! Although ASH would have you believe that passive smoking is worse than boiling your head in sulphuric acid! The lungs of those who "may" have cancer as a result of passive smoking have never been clogged up with tar etc. and there are different forms of lung cancer of which only one is caused by the direct action of smoking over extended periods of time. Certain people with axes to grind (normally ex-smokers funnily enough) will attribute data and stats to suit there own purpose. That all said - send the people who don't mind smoke to carry out the work concerned. You could always ask your own staff and set up a register.

Posted By J Knight And while we're at it, for those of you who still think that 2nd hand smoke is a tonic, I came across a figure this morning stating that 17,000 children a year are hospitalised as a result of inhaling 2nd hand tobacco smoke. Of course, it could be just another statistical blip. I'd say wake up and smell the coffee, but you'll have to give up smoking and let your noses recover first, John

Posted By J Knight From a purely practical point of view, I have two things to offer. First of all, don't forget that 'pregnancy' extends for six months after birth or, for some hazards including chemicals, until the mother gives up breast-feeding (supposing she is breast-feeding in the first place). And secondly, I would think a lot would depend on what the mother wanted; as I said in my first post on this thread, I don't think it's safe or even possible to force somebody to work with 2nd hand smoke, and your employee's views or sensitivities may have changed following pregnancy, John

Posted By Merv Newman I'm with rob on this. Have never been able to get my head around the idea that there are more people seriously affected by passive smoking than there are by direct smoking. The concentrations inhaled differ by an order of magnitude. And I WILL NOT take a quote from a journalist (bbc or not) as evidence of the absolute truth or otherwise or a "well known fact" I want to see for myself the original peer-reviewed paper published in a respected scientific journal.

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear All, The relative risk of lung cancer from involuntary smoking at work in never smokers is around 1.03 -1.05, i.e. it is increased by 3-5% above persons who have never smoked nor been exposed to involuntary smoking at work. The risk of lung cancer from involuntary smoking at work in non smokers is increased by up to 1.34, i.e. it is increased by up to 40% above persons who have never smoked nor been exposed to involuntary smoking at work. The Sources for this iare IARC Monograph on Tobacco Smoking and Involuntary Smoking Table 2.8 pp 1266 & Table 2.10 pp1269-70 (IARC 2004) & Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of respiratory cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in former smokers and never smokers in the EPIC prospective study BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38327. 648472.82 (published 28 January 2005) The incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers not exposed to non-voluntary smoking was 80, (95% CI 60-110) per 100,000 in the EPIC prospective study. From above you can calculate that the increased risk in never smokers leads to additional 4 (3-6) lung cancers deaths per 100,000 persons exposed to involuntary smoking at work. It should be noted that ex smokers have an increased risk of lung cancer but this is not as large a risk as smokers. If we use an example of employers working in pubs, bars, nightclubs, hotels and restaurants as an example. I have used this as an example because the author of an Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis [BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38370.496632.8F (published 2 March 2005)] used this group in his study. He stated that there 320,262 people worked in pubs, bars, and nightclubs, and 829,401 worked in hotels and restaurants. He stated that 30% of the workforce smoked and 11% of the general working population were exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work. As a general calculation you can calculate that 45(95% CI 34-70) persons will suffer early death in these industries if everybody in these industry sectors were never smokers and were all exposed to involuntary smoking at work. This is obviously wrong as some workers are smokers and some workers will not be exposed to non-voluntary smoking at work. If 30% of these workers are smokers, then the exposed population in our example is not 1,149,663 but 804,764 exposed persons i.e. the total population minus smokers. If you believe that the average exposed rate of 11% is too low, as does the author of the paper, you have to approximate the number exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The author of the paper believes 100%, but I would guess that around 50% of persons working in pubs, bars, and nightclubs and 30% of persons working in hotels and restaurants are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work. This would mean that the exposed population is 325,929. This means that if all these persons were never smokers than the additional number of lung cancer deaths in pubs, bars, nightclubs, hotels and restaurants is 13 (95% CI 10-20). The author of the paper referred to above, estimated that 20 % of these populations were stable, and would be at risk. If you accept these assumptions then there would be 3 (95% CI 2-4) excess deaths from lung cancer in these industries. If you use the risk rates of 1.34 instead of 1.05 then the estimates of excess deaths for non-smokers from at work is 21 (95% CI 14-28). As can be seen the estimates are open to challenge. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Geoff Burt ''We all quote figures we can't support. We will all state with conviction that the number of workplace deaths in a year is c250; how many of us can actually verify that? '' I don't think we do John, I certainly try not to and personally I think I could justify, with the information available, the number of fatalities as being in the region of 250. But I would make life much more difficult for myself if I increased it to 25000, to try to prove a point, and would lose my credibility in the process. Sometimes it is best to hold your hands up, admit a mistake and start again - don't you think?

Posted By J Knight Geoff, I didn't make a mistake, the BBC article (quoted also in other places) cites research which gives a headline figure of 11,000 deaths a year. In my first post I didn't say kills hundreds of workers every month, I said hundreds of people. To repeat, passive smoking (which as the previous post says causes much more than just lung cancer) may well be responsible for hundreds of deaths a month, though if we stick to employees the research cited in the article claims a mere 50 deaths a month. Hardly worth considering, only 50 per month. OK, the workplace deaths figure is reasonably easily reconstructed, but what evidence have you personally got for anything in EH40? WES's are at least partly based on the kind of epidemiological & statistical evidence you have been gleefully disregarding when the techniques are applied to passive smoking, John