Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 10 comments Add your own | iPod friendly | Bookmark this Facebook bookmark del.icio.us bookmark StumbleUpon bookmark Digg bookmark What is this?

Smoke-free workplaces? The entire property?

Published Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project is about making the healthy choice the easy choice, and local business representatives learned how they can make it an easy choice for their employees to quit smoking.

“It’s still a leading cause of illness and death in America, and it’s preventable. It is an addiction and a very challenging thing,” said Joel Spoonheim, director of health initiatives with Blue Zones.

Kelli Thielges, Wellness Manager, Schwan’s Shared Services LLC, spoke Tuesday in the Freeborn Room of the Freeborn County Government Center about Schwan’s policy to prohibit smoking on company property. She also spoke about the businesses partnership with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota to provide employee assistance programs and nicotine replacement therapy to all employees to help them quit smoking.

Thielges said she turned to her father, a former smoker, for advice to get the project going. He told her most smokers want to quit.

Her father said he wanted to quit for three reasons: expense, family and his workplace banned indoor smoking.

Since he couldn’t smoke indoors at work, it was an extra inconvenience to go outside.

But the biggest motivation was to his grandchildren, because Thielges said she didn’t want him to smoke around her children.

After initial research into the issue, Thielges and her team formed an implementation committee of 13 employees rather than survey employees. Thielges said the committee, formed in 2008, was an important step. The committee included employees from different areas and levels of the company, and it included smokers, non-smokers and former smokers.

“That first meeting, we had a very fruitful discussion, and we came down to the point where all the issues that came up we had either researched or we knew that we had to research more to come up with a plan. It was more about what’s our plan, not if we were going to go to this tobacco-free policy,” Thielges said.

The employee voice provided by the committee was a key step in the process, she said.

The announcement of the policy revision did not say employees couldn’t smoke. The wording stipulated smoking would be banned from all company property, including the parking lot, Thielges said.

“We’re not saying you can’t smoke. We’re saying you can’t smoke and use tobacco on this property. However, if you choose to try and quit you have resources available: free NRT, free coaching programs.”

In July of 2008, a formal announcement was made that the policy change would occur Jan. 1, 2009. Some market research suggested making such a change in a warm season, but Thielges said January worked because it tied into New Year’s resolutions.

Thielges compared the Jan. 1 changeover to Y2K and said it was a non-event. She said there were very few policy violations. 

From a business perspective, Thielges said the initiative needed to be profitable, and she said she tells management the program pays for itself. She estimated the program cost $155,000 and the cost savings were estimated to be about $222,743 — a net savings of $70,743.

In 2008, 699 employees were enrolled in the tobacco cessation program, and in 2007, 86 were enrolled in the program the entire year, Thielges said. Six months into the program, 119 of 699 said they had not used tobacco in the previous 30 days, she said.

“That showed me what the data revealed and what personal experience revealed prior to that: People want to quit — it’s a matter of giving them the resources,” Thielges said.

One of the most important parts of the process was communication, Thielges said. During the process, employees weren’t told they couldn’t smoke, they were told they couldn’t smoke on company property, she said.

“When you’re changing culture, it’s important to communicate the whys and give the perspective of the person who’s really being affected,” Thielges said.

One-on-one communication, posters and brochures were all ways human resources worked to communicate with employees, and communication occurred in different languages.

The legal department needs to be involved to see if the policy changes are legal, and Thielges said support from management is also important.

It’s also important to not rush the process, she said.

“We’re really changing a culture — trying to ask people to change their behavior, and it they don’t, at least they’ve changed their behavior in smoking somewhere else,” she said.

Management expressed concerns such a change would lead employees to quit. So Thielges and her team contacted 11 manufacturing companies that had similar initiatives, and they told Thielges few employees quit because of the smoking ban.

Out of about 18,000 Schwan’s employees, Thielges said only one quit because of the change.

There was also concerns people wouldn’t know where the property lines were. So, Thielges and human resources decided to determine where the boundary line was, just in case employees questioned it.

Neighboring properties were also a concern, because Thielges didn’t want smokers to smoke on nearby properties. Thielges said they told employees to be respectful of other properties and not litter.

Enforcement of the change was also a concern, and Thielges said it was handled like any other policy change: Employees would receive verbal and written warnings if he or she failed to follow the policy. She said they didn’t have to go further than a verbal warning.

Thorne Crest Retirement Home is one local business that banned smoking on company property. This change occurred Aug. 14 and was planned about six months in advance.

Thorne Crest Administrator Shanna Eckberg said the biggest reason for the change was safety. The prior designated smoking area was the loading garage, and the garage door was often left open and that presented a safety hazard because people could have gotten in.

“It was the right thing to do because you’re helping employees. When most of them want to quit, it’s the right thing to do to provide that resource for them,” Thielges said.

Schwan’s employee Gary Kelly’s story was used to inspire people to quit smoking. After many failed attempts to quit, Thielges said he quit as a personal choice. He didn’t want to smoke when he had grandchildren. 

Saving money is one important part, but Thielges said the personal factor is much more important.

“This is just not a policy anymore about saving money. It’s a policy about helping people,” she said.


WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?

Bookmark and Share



Comments

Posted by speakup (anonymous) on August 19, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

After smoking for 16 years I quit one year ago. I never really noticed before, but now that I don't smoke I absolutely hate walking out the door of my business and seeing cigarette butts all over the ground.( even though there are recepticles available ) Not only is it nasty and stinky but it looks bad to have employees OR customers standing around outside smoking. Smokers need to realize that their personal choice to pollute themselves is definately not everyone elses choice. If you want to smoke do it on your own time and on your own property! I for one am a much more productive employee now that by day does not revolve around my smoke break!

Posted by badjuju (anonymous) on August 19, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not a smoker, but what looks worse for your company, having a smoking area or seeing them standing on the curbside in front of your busness with a cigerette hanging from their mouth. Think about it. This will not make for happy workers.

Posted by savypro (anonymous) on August 19, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just another right the cry babies want to take away,but i bet they dont think of the pollution they cause everytime they start their vehicle.

Posted by sunshine214 (anonymous) on August 20, 2009 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

smokers have rights too, they are taking this way too far, I don't mind going outside to smoke, but off the property!! Wise up people, Hormel tried to do this and it failed miserably.
Why don't the people who try to do this kind of stuff try and pass laws against drinking too.

Posted by aster67 (anonymous) on August 20, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

why not pass laws against offensive body odor? That can be very offensive to some people. Make it manitory for everyone to wear the same deoderant. Let's have the government tell us which kind to wear, because I don't think anyone can make a decision like that anymore.

Posted by peacerules (anonymous) on August 20, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Congrats speakup on quitting smoking! I cannot believe it took you to quit smoking to become a more productive employee. I myself am a smoker and have never based my day around my cigarette breaks. What's next in this city? Will obese people be banned from McDonalds? Will the bars close for the drunks? Everybody has habits, bad or good.... Who are we to judge what someone else should or should not be doing? Smoking is not the only thing that kills out there! I am all for the no smoking inside. This is supposed to be a free country! What the heck is wrong with people? Instead of focusing on smoking habits, how about we all put our effort into our schools and stop bullying and gangs!! Now that "speakup" would be something very productive!!

Posted by speakup (anonymous) on August 20, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

peacerules- I said MORE productive! When someone goes out to smoke they are gone for at least 5 to 10 minutes,and probably go out 2 or 3 times during their shift. Is that productive? NO!!! Will bars close for the drunks? Are you serious! If I go to the bar I expect to be greeted by drunks! When I walk in or out of work, should I HAVE to be greeted by a cloud of smoke? Should our customers HAVE to be greeted by a cloud of smoke? It is a workplace! Someone else OWNS the property you are puffing away on! Go home and smoke! (Or go to the bar- oh yeah, you can't smoke there either!!! WAAAAH WAAAAH!)

Posted by peacerules (anonymous) on August 20, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

speakup- I too agree with you that smokers do not need to be standing at the front door of a business puffing away. And as far as going out 2 or 3 times a day to smoke.... I believe you would call them "breaks". And YES... breaks have been proven to make employees more productive. Also, the bars have created smoking areas so are they really "smoke free" If you live in this world you should expect to be greeted by a lot of different people. You obviously didn't grasp the meaning behind "what is next in this city?" I will continue to smoke on the city streets and sidewalks that I help pay for. However, I do respect the non-smokers and whoever else who is different than me. Not only is the cigarette smoke bothersome but so are the chemicals that are sprayed on lawns or in our fields. Also the paint that is used on our houses and the cleaner some businesses use or how about those of us with allergies and we have to walk into a PUBLIC restroom or into a BUSINESS that has live flowers outside the door and air fresheners that take your breath away! I more than likely could pass a law that would not allow businesses to use fragrant cleaners or put live flowers outside, but for the 5 seconds or 5 minutes that I am there... I suck it up and don't whine about it!!

Posted by Me2 (anonymous) on August 21, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about smokers start by not dumping their cigarette butts all over the place. Yuck!

Posted by speakup (anonymous) on August 21, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

peacerules - you are waaaaay out there... Enjoy your smokes! By the way, what else are you smoking? You really compare cigarette smoke to flowers! I never mentioned the city streets you "helped pay for". I think the article was about banning smoking at privately owned businesses! When you walk back in from your "break" and you smell like an ashtray, thank your employer for tolerating you! Whine on proud smoker, whine on!

Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)

The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.

(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:




advanced search

© 2010 Albert Lea Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Boone Newspapers Inc. publication.

Contact us | Privacy Policy