CorpComms Magazine

There's a line being puffed out by tobacco executives concerning the new phenomenon of 'smirting'. It's an Irish development in the wake of the Republic's smoking ban, and describes how chuffers congregating for a drag outside their place of work are summoning up just enough breath to throw the occasional chat-up line into their fag breaks.

That all seems entirely unremarkable, until you learn that suspicious nonsmokers are following their smoking partners outside to keep an eye on them. And while they're out there, they're lighting up cigarettes themselves. The story may or may not be apocryphal, but if it has any factual grounding it is another one chalked up for the law of unintended consequences - one of those annoying rules in life that can make legislators and communicators (among others) look ridiculous.

If you have yet to come across smirting, or any other surprises from changes to the rules on smoking, it probably won't be too long before you do. On July 1 the ban on smoking in public places comes into force in England, following Scotland last year and Northern Ireland and Wales in April.

'We had non-smokers complaining that they had to walk past gangs of smokers outside the building just to get into work,' recalls Dr Paul Litchfield, the chief medical officer at telecoms giant BT, which introduced a ban on smoking on its UK premises last year. 'There was also a bit of a discussion in some places about how we should use the smoking room space that had been freed up. Some argued that it was an amenity and should remain so, while others said they wanted the storage space. That was something I didn't foresee.

'Generally, though, there was very little adverse feedback. After the initial period we heard nothing. You make a change, and maybe people don't like it, but they comply.'

Putting it out

BT chose to implement a UK-wide ban when the legislation was introduced last year in Scotland as it seemed ridiculous to have different rules for employees in Gateshead from those in Galashiels. It is a convincing argument, which becomes academic this summer, when communications departments will need some sort of plan about how staff are told about the changes and how they affect them.

Some of the issues involved - like the smoking room being axed and gaspers being chased outside behind the corporate equivalent of the bike shed - are pretty evident. And for employers who haven't yet worked out what the ban will mean for them, it is all covered in ample detail on the government's web site www.smokefreeengland.co.uk. But then there are those tricky unforeseen - or not immediately obvious - aspects of the ban that need some kind of communications strategy. 'There will be issues such as how much time smokers can take off work,' predicts Amanda Sandford, research manager for anti-smoking lobby Ash. 'This needs to be addressed if smokers are away from their desks for a long time as that can cause resentment among non-smokers, which is understandable. After all, if you take four ten-minute smoking breaks a day, on top of your lunch break, by the end of the week that comes to almost half a day out of work time. Those breaks add up, and will add up even more without smoking rooms.'

There is some evidence for this. In 2000 London council Tower Hamlets was among the first employers in the country to officially recognise smoking breaks. Smokers were given half an hour to smoke during the day, but at their own expense. The idea was to extend the working day by half an hour for smokers, to level up the working time with non-smokers. The idea wasn't an unqualified success, however, and the unions threatened industrial action on behalf of their smoker workers.

Health message

Seven years on, there seems to be a more caring approach to members' health and well-being. 'Overall, the smoking ban is not a big issue,' asserts Richard O'Brien, director of communications at manufacturing trade union Amicus. 'Our advice to companies is to help staff kick the habit and to avoid any knee-jerk disciplinary action, especially by saying things like, This is the law and you're going to prison. We would say to companies where there is a union, we can help. It is always useful to get union support.'

Having been through all this already, Litchfield agrees the unions can be handy in selling the message. 'We did get the backing of our two trade unions and probably that support helped diffuse any suspicion that goes around,' he says. 'We were expecting a lot of resistance, but we got very little.'

Litchfield believes the 'no more smoking' message is inherently a negative one, but one that can be easily turned into a positive line. 'We would rather say that this is what we are doing because it is linked to work we are already carrying out on improving healthcare,' he explains. 'We completed a scheme on nutrition and exercise and deliberately didn't include smoking; the follow-up included the topic of heart disease so then there was a link.

'We had a three-point approach. First, we tried to help people give up. We started a web site where our employees could register and get information on giving up smoking. There were 'giving up clubs', a bit like WeightWatchers, where your success was partly due to your team motivating you. The site also told you how much money you had saved by giving up. 'Second, we linked that web site into NHS services and resources and we deliberately launched on national No Smoking Day, which came a few weeks in advance of the ban in Scotland. We used NHS resources and pointed staff in that direction. 'Third, we negotiated a discount with the Allen Carr service, which is one of the more effective programmes to help smokers who want to give up. There is a belief that if you're paying for something, you value it more. These were the steps we took to support people giving up.'

Quitting time

After all that effort, plus roadshows to promote kicking the habit, BT had about 1,000 staff register on its site from a workforce of around 85,000. It has never surveyed how many smokers it employs, but estimates up to a third of its staff smoke, which would be marginally higher than the national average of 25 percent. The group's workforce is about 75 percent male with a high proportion in their late 40s.

'We don't know how many gave up and kept off,' continues Litchfield, who says he has not heard of any smoking disciplinary cases at the company since the ban. 'We don't want to make a huge deal of it, as people can develop some weird theories about the company targeting smokers for redundancy.' That's another unexpected effect internal communications might be able to help quell, and most departments seem to be planning a soft message concentrating on the health benefits, rather than telling staff how much they might get fined if they ignore the new rules.

'It's important to work out all these issues while offering support,' says Sandford. 'This is a huge opportunity for people to stop smoking. Employers have a major responsibility to help staff quit.'

Most seem to agree, as many major offices have been predominantly non-smoking for years. 'For our members this is something they've had in the workplace for a long time - it's not a major change,' says Janet Asherson, head of health and safety at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). The big change is that smoking rooms are not allowed. It is now about companies offering support and assistance to staff wanting to give up. There are a few problem areas, like what to do about one of your tradespeople who might need to visit a smoking client at home, but these are small and manageable problems.'

Manageable, that is, until another unintended consequence suddenly appears through the smog.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet