Volume:6
Issue:2
Year:
2007
Marc Adams Jones1 BSc (Hons) MCIEH, David Adams Jones2 MA MSc Dip Stat FSS, Colin Powell3 BSc (Tech) FHEA
1Environmental Health Officer, Vale of Glamorgan
2Consultant Statistician
3 Senior Lecturer, University Wales Institute Cardiff
Correspondence: Marc Adams Jones, Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services, Vale of Glamorgan Council, Civic Offices, Holton Road, Barry, CF63 V4RU. Email: madams-jones@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk. Telephone: +44 (0) 1446 709155
Abstract
The attitudes of bar staff to second-hand tobacco smoke and smoking controls in the workplace were investigated in 2001 bymeans of a questionnaire survey. At that time government policy favoured voluntary agreements with the hospitality industry. In 2006, when policy had changed and legislation was imminent, the same questionnaire was used to determine if any changes in attitudes had occurred over the five-year period.
The main findings were: bar staff had become significantly less tolerant of second-hand smoke between 2001 and 2006; bar staff who smoked had become significantly more supportive of the introduction of a smoking policy by 2006; the significant majority considering a smoking policy to be impractical in 2001 had disappeared by 2006; in 2006 it was still the majority view that smoking was an integral part of pub life and that smoking policies would interfere with customers enjoyment.
It is possible that while perceived feasibility and desirability of smoking policies has increased, there has not been a major shift in the positive view of bar staff towards smoking in pubs and it is argued that this may have implications for the implementation of smoking controls. Steps to accommodate clients who smoke may result in the migration of smoking to other areas of the premise and the growth of related nuisance issues such as noise and litter. Proprietors could consider steps to accommodate those who wish to use their facilities and smoke, whilst still ‘complying’ with the legislation. For example beer gardens and courtyards could increasingly become the smoking areas of pubs during previously underused winter and autumn months resulting in noise and light nuisances. The modification of outdoor areas to provide weather protection could result in smoke accumulating. Previously family oriented beer gardens could now become the main smoking areas. This could increase children’s exposure to second hand smoke as well as influencing their perception of the social acceptability of smoking.
Key words: Bar staff; environmental health, environmental tobacco smoke, ETS, pubs, smoking ban,Wales.
Introduction
Workers in the licensed trade have, despite policies on smoking in the workplace, been subjected to the effects of unwanted tobacco smoke whilst at work (Jarvis et al 1992).
Davis (1999) commented on “hell-hole conditions”, whilst Francis et al (2000) highlighted the fact that many “bar workers” did not consider that there was any protection for them and that their health was being compromised with nothing being done to alleviate the problems of environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] in the workplace.
Over the years it has been accepted by employees in public houses that they worked in conditions throughout their working day where they were exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke. Adams Jones (2002) suggested that the prevalence of smokers amongst bar workers was higher than that found in the general population but even staff who were smokers commented that it would be nice to choose when, where and how often they smoked. Comments of those interviewed and recorded as part of the research in 2001 included;
“I’d like to choose how often I smoke, and the brand!”
“It’s not so much the cigarette smoke I’m subjected to daily as much as the attitude that it’s perfectly acceptable because it’s a smokers choice. They don’t consider that it’s my place of work.”
“It’s part and parcel of working behind a bar, you just get on with it.”
“If staff don’t like it, get another job, you don’t have to work in a pub, you can always get a job where people don’t smoke.”
Over the past 30 years restrictions on smoking have been put in place on public transport (trains and buses), theatres, cinemas and the London Underground. Airlines also began enforcing no smoking on planes. However, the bastion of support for the rights of the smoker, the licensed trade, did nothing, standing firm behind the fact that “beer and fags go hand in hand”, “it’s part of the pub culture”.
The hospitality industry, tobacco companies and prosmoking groups were prepared to stand toe to toe with anyone suggesting that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants despite evidence to suggest that there was a greater risk to employees in the hospitality industry, Jamorozik (2005) estimating that secondhand smoke causes one premature death a week among workers in the hospitality industries.
Despite Government offering the hospitality industry the opportunity to use the Public Places Charter to bring about change, the Department of Health noted that about half the pubs complying with the Charter requirements did so by allowing smoking throughout. (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2003). Heloma et al (2001) criticised voluntary agreements and concluded that legislation was more efficient than voluntary workplace-specific restrictions in reducing passive smoking and cigarette consumption. Reality really struck home when the Charter Group in a progress report in 2003 revealed that 46% of restaurants and pubs surveyed still allowed smoking throughout, with 22% having separate smoking and non-smoking areas and less than 1%banning smoking completely.
The Government, when deciding on legislative measures to deal with second-hand tobacco smoke in the workplace, stood by a number of exempted premises including members clubs and public houses not serving food when the Health Bill was published in late 2005. This would have created a two tier class of employee, those protected from the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke and those not protected. Public consultation however revealed overwhelming support for a comprehensive smoking ban and on 14 February 2006,MPs voted with a largemajority to remove these exemptions.
Scotland took the lead on 26th March 2006 with a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and Wales, despite being the first of the home nations to support a total ban on smoking in the workplace, had to wait until primary legislation through the Health Act 2006 came into force before being able to institute a ban on April 2nd 2007. Northern Ireland on 30th April 2007 came hot on the heels of Wales before England announced their ban, which came into force on July 1st 2007.
The initial research carried out between 2000-2001, and again in 2006 (Adams Jones et al 2007) points to there being a change in the attitudes of bar staff workers to their exposure to second hand tobacco smoke in the workplace between the time that legislation was first contemplated and when it actually became a reality. The study aimed to compare the attitudes of bar staff workers at two points in time; in 2001 when control was seen to be through voluntary agreements and an approved code of practice, and, in 2006 when control was seen to be imminently effected through legislation.
Methodology
In 2001 and 2006 questionnaires were distributed both to licensees/owners and to employees working behind the bar in pubs operating within the boundaries of the Vale of Glamorgan. Identification of premises was based upon data provided by the Local Authority Licensing Officer.
Personal questions relating to gender, age, hours of work etc. were set out in Part 1 of the questionnaire. This section also provided factual information about the establishments. Part 2 was designed to establish individual attitudes towards staff exposure to ETS in the workplace; it consisted of a Likert Scale using 29 attitude statements.
The 2006 study utilised Parts 1 and 2 of the 2001 questionnaire and a third section was added which focused on the issues surrounding the legislation coming into force on 2nd April 2007 in Wales. Questionnaires were distributed either via a special appointment with the manager or as part of a routine local authority visit to the premises.
Two questionnaires were to be completed at each establishment, one by the owner/licensee and the second by another member of staff. On a few occasions it was found that only a single staff member was present or that the pub was “family run” by the owners with no extra staff.
Twenty-nine Likert statements were designed to investigate four factors and were split into four groups to address four domains of perception; tolerance of the smoking habits of others; perception of passive smoking as a health risk; perception of the desirability of having a smoking policy in public houses; perception of the practicability of achieving a smoking policy in public houses by further legislation or any other means.
Results
In 2001 there was an 88 per cent response rate to the 92 questionnaires issued at 46 establishments. There was a similar response rate in 2006 to the 88 questionnaires issued at 44 establishments.
Table 1.0 Statements relating to the respondents tolerance of other people’s smoking habits.
During the initial research 95.7 per cent of the establishments sampled, in common with the majority of public houses had ash trays on the bar servery counter itself and allowed smoking directly at the bar. Figures indicated that in 2006 there was a statistically significant (p<0.001) increase in the percentage of establishments with a no smoking zone at the bar: 52.3 per cent compared with 4.3 per cent in 2001.
During the 5 years between the two studies, there was no overall difference in smoking prevalence but in both cases the level, at over 54 per cent, was more than double that of the prevalence in the general population.
The statistical analysis of the data was based on two standard tests: chi-squared tests were used for comments on establishment characteristics, prevalence and responses to individual questions whilst t-tests were used to comment on the differences between Likert scores (Tables 4.0 -6.0). For the size of the samples this test is sufficiently robust to accommodate a degree of non-normality in the underlying population.
Between 2001 and 2006 the main changes in perception detected in the surveys were;
- tolerance of second hand smoke has reduced significantly but remains towards the libertarian end of the scale;
- the high levels of awareness of the health risks associated with second hand smoke has not changed significantly;
- the majority in favour of a smoking policy has increased significantly mainly due to changes amongst smokers;
- the majority view in 2001 of the impracticality of legislation on smoking has disappeared by 2006.
In all four domains of perception there would therefore seem to be a trend towards more widespread acceptance of legal restrictions on smoking in the workplace. Particularly striking was the change in attitudes to the statement that smoking policies cannot work in a pub. In 2001 there was 54.3 per cent agreement with this negative view; by 2006 this position had been reversed with only 24.7 per cent now agreeing with the statement.
For each statement there was a large and statistically significant majority favouring the libertarian approach both in 2001 and in 2006. For two of the statements (6 & 16) there was a significant movement away from this end of the spectrum between 2001 and 2006.
In five of the six statements in this group there was a general consensus in favour of some type of smoking policy. The exception was statement 4 - that secondary tobacco smoke was “unacceptable”. This statement was opposed both in 2001 and in 2006. There was a significant increase in the support for statements 17 & 19 which both related to non-smoking areas within establishments.
Table 2.0 Statements relating to the desirability of some type of smoking policy
In 2001 there was a statistically significant majority agreeing with the statements suggesting the impracticability of smoking legislation. By 2006 this majority had been reversed for statement 8 and apart from statement 15 the balance of opinion had shifted significantly towards the “practicability” end of the spectrum.
Before looking at an overall picture of respondents’ perceptions in the four domains it is necessary to validate the statements within each domain to ensure that they are all measuring the same perception or attitude. Correlating the individual responses within each domain does this. This procedure leads to the exclusion of several statements in the original study (Adams Jones 2002).
A likert score of 15 on the 5 implies balance between tolerance and intolerance with higher values for a more libertarian view. In both 2001 and 2006 respondents tended significantly to the libertarian view but the decrease in the score between 2001 and 2006 indicated that respondents in the later study were less supportive
Table 3.0 Statements relating to the impracticability of achieving a satisfactory smoking policy through legislative means.
Table 4.0 Likert scores relating to tolerance
Table 5.0 Likert scores relating to the desirability of a smoking policy
Table 6.0 Likert scores relating to the impracticability of a smoking policy.
of “people wishing to smoke in a pub being allowed to do so” (p<0.05) and less agreed with the statement that smoking is an integral part of pub life. (p<0.05) Despite respondents becoming less tolerant it is however still noticeable that a majority of people support smoking in the pub and view it as part of pub life.
A likert score of 15 on the 5 statements implies indifference to the introduction of a smoking policy. In both 2001 and 2006 respondents were significantly in favour of a smoking policy (p<0.05) and between 2001 and 2006 there was a statistically significant increase in this preference for smokers (p<0.05) with no significant change for non-smokers.
A likert score of 15 on the 5 statements implies a balanced view on the impracticability of a smoking policy. The mean score of 16.36 in 2001 is significantly towards the impractical persuasion (p<0.05). In 2006 the mean score of 15.75 is not significantly different fromthe balanced view. A significant (p<0.05) difference between smokers and non-smokers in 2001 has disappeared by 2006.
Discussion
This study aimed to consider bar staff attitudes towards smoking in pubs and aspects of smoking control. The significant change in the attitudes of employees to the statement that smoking policies cannot work in a pub is been by the reduction of agreement with the statement from 54.3 per cent to 24.7 per cent. This may be a reflection of the success of the implementation of voluntary restrictions over the years and linked to the publicity associated with the launch of legally enforced control in other countries.
The voluntary introduction of smoking policies in pubs and the perceived feasibility of controls may act as a predictor of compliance with new legislation in Wales as the results indicate that whilst tolerance of second hand tobacco smoke in the two studies has reduced significantly, it still remains towards the libertarian end of the scale.
This position is reinforced by the finding that the majority of the respondents supported the view that:
- smoking is an integral part of pub life
- a person wishing to smoke in a pub should be allowed to do so
- smoking policies would interfere with a customer’s enjoyment
- customers enjoy a smoky atmosphere.
This potentially poses a challenge to the successful management of a ban on smoking in pubs. Bar staff are likely to be involved in the day to day operation of smoking restrictions and if they are not persuaded by the arguments for the new legislation they may not be fully committed to its enforcement.
A number of options are available to address this situation. Firstly the use of penalties for non-compliance administered by enforcement officers can andwill be used. The success of such an approach is however dependent upon bar staff’s perception of the likelihood of detection of breaches of legislation and the size of the penalties. It would appear that there has not been a fundamental shift in bar staff view of the acceptability of smoking. This may have implications for the implementation of the ban on smoking in enclosedworkplaces. Staff may wish to support steps that would enable clients to continue what is perceived as a legitimate part of pub life.
In conversations with publicans they commonly indicated that the biggest problem would not be the actual physical change to smoke-free premises but the difficulty in persuading customers that the ban was primarily an essential tool in protecting the health of bar workers. Such protection is already given to workers in other industries dealing with dangerous substances e.g. lead and asbestos. It was suggested by publicans that more publicity should be given to this health aspect of the legislation with less emphasis on the punitive effects on smokers.
As most respondents appear to accept that controls are feasible and that there should be restrictions on smoking in pubs, it is anticipated that there would not be wholesale rejection of the legislation. However, there may be issues as to how the law is interpreted. This research clearly indicates that there are still positive attitudes towards smoking in pubs. As an industry geared to the provision of services to clients, there may be a tendency to comply with legislation whilst still meeting perceived customer preferences. As a consequence, legislation designed to protect the health and safety of employees may have negative consequences for the wider community. Proprietors could consider steps to accommodate those who wish to use their facilities and still smoke. For example beer gardens and courtyards could increasingly become the smoking areas of pubs during previously underused winter and autumn months resulting in noise nuisance and light nuisance. The modification of outdoor areas to provide weather protection could result in smoke accumulating. Beer gardens that may presently be family orientated could now become the main smoking areas. This could increase children’s exposure to second hand smoke as well as the presence of increased numbers of smokers around children influencing their perception of the social acceptability of smoking.
Where provision is not made for smokers, clientsmay chose to step outside of premises to smoke; this may again impact on noise levels and increase litter in the street.
If proprietors take steps to accommodate smoking clients, there is a need to provide them with clear guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate environment. Whilst it is assumed that secondary tobacco smoke presentsmore of a health risk in enclosed spaces, there is a need tomonitor whether so called open spaces in pubs are appropriately designed to allow for the dispersion of smoke.
Conclusions
- There is an increase in the perception of the feasibility and desirability of restrictions on smoking in pubswhen the responses of bar staff in 2006 are compared with those in 2001
- The findings fromboth studies, however, imply that the majority of bar staff are supportive of people being able to smoke in pubs. In view of this, it is suggested that many pubswill take steps to support those wishing to smoke.
- Most respondents appear to accept that controls are feasible and that there should be restrictions on smoking of pubs; it is not, therefore, anticipated that there would be wholesale rejection of the legislation by pub staff, although there may be issues as to how thelaw is interpreted which could create challenges for those managing and enforcing the smoking ban legislation.
- Proprietors could consider steps to accommodate those who wish to use their facilities and smoke, whilst still ‘complying’with the law. For example beer gardens and courtyards could increasingly become the smoking areas of pubs during previously underused winter and autumn months resulting in noise and light nuisances. The modification of outdoor areas to provide weather protection could result in smoke accumulating. Previously family oriented beer gardens could now become the main smoking areas. This could increase children’s exposure to second hand smoke as well as the presence of increased numbers of smokers around children influencing their perception of the social acceptability of smoking.
- Where provision is not made for smokers, clients may choose to step outside of premises to smoke; this may again impact on noise levels and increase litter in the street.
- In Wales the benefit of the ban starting in April was that smokers had the spring and summer months to acclimatise to the realities of the ban. Realistically, enforcement officers will have to wait until the darker, colder, wetter winter months to effectively assess the success of the ban in protecting bar staff employees from second-hand tobacco smoke.
References
Adams Jones M (2002) An investigation into the attitudes of bar staff workers to environmental tobacco smoke and the varying provision of smoke free areas within public houses in the Vale of Glamorgan. University Wales Institute Cardiff Students BSc Environmental Health related dissertations. Unpublished.
Adams Jones M, Adams Jones D, Powell C (2007). Towards reality and away from blind acceptance: Changes in the attitude of public house bar staff to their exposure to second hand tobacco smoke in the workplace since the announcement of legislative measures. Health Education Journal (in press)
Davis L M (1999). Publicans and passive smoking: a survey of publicans’ views on tobacco smoke in their workplaces. Health Education Journal 58: p. 271-279
Francis N, Blevin A, Aveyard P (2000). The attitudes of non-smoking bar staff to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work. Health Education Journal: 59: p.228-237
Heloma A, Jaakkola M S, Kähkönen E, Reijula K (2001). The short-term impact of national smoke-free workplace legislation on passive smoking and tobacco use. American Journal of Public Health 91(9): 1416-8.
Jamrozik K (2005). Estimate of deaths among adults in the United Kingdom attributable to passive smoking. BMJ 2005, published online 01 March 2005. Available on-line at www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812 [accessed 25/07/07]
Jarvis M J, Foulds J, Feyerabend C (1992). Exposure to passive smoking amongst bar staff. British Journal of Addiction: 87:111-113
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology POSTNOTE October 2003 Number 206 page 2.
The Charter Group (2003). The Public Places Charter on Smoking: Industry progress report. The Charter Group.