Employees forced to have their lunchtime cigarettes inwind-swept doorways have become an increasingly common sight incity streets. But, according to a recent survey, these smokersshould count themselves fortunate. Out of the 731 companiesquestioned by Reed Personnel Services this summer, 30 per cent saythat they would recruit a non-smoker rather than a smoker, giventhe same qualifications. Smoking, it seems, ruins your health andyour job prospects.
It was the sight of the outdoor smokers that inspired Alec Reed,chairman and founder of the Reed employment agencies to organisethe survey. The results revealed a measurable social change.
This move to health policies in the workplace is partly due to agrowing awareness of the financial drain of sickness absencepayments which, according to the CBI, cost British industry pounds13bn a year.
But another reason for the interest in corporate healthprogrammes is that employers have greater performance expectationsof their staff because of 'downsizing'. Employees have to workharder so their health is now seen as an important contributoryfactor to their ability to maintain the pace.
The Government, too, has become aware of the need to reducehealth- care bills through preventive action. The Department ofHealth has recognised that the workplace gives unique access to the'well' population. Links have been formed with businesses,resulting in the 'Look After Your Heart Campaign' in the lateEighties and, more recently, workplace alcohol and addictioninitiatives.
As a result, many larger companies have begun to considerimplementing workplace health programmes covering a range ofactivities such as fitness classes, give-up smoking sessions andweight counselling.
Those mourning the loss of boozy lunches and fuggy, smoke-filledoffices have argued that this is a new puritanism dressed up as anemployee benefit. Chris Tame, director of Freedom Organisation forthe Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest), says: 'Employers actas if they own their employees. For example, what's to stop themforcing an overweight employee to go jogging to safeguard theirjob?'
But advocates, backed by some impressive results from earlyprogrammes in the United States, point to the benefits.
In the UK, too, companies that actively promote employee healthcan measure the effect. The Don and Low Group, textilemanufacturers based in Tayside, saw a fall in absenteeism of 1.5per cent among 800 employees between 1986 and 1990 following ahealth programme. It included subsidised sports arrangements withthe local council and a health education programme giving advice ondiet, alcohol, drug abuse and stress management. When the cosmeticcompany Rimmel International launched a repetitive strain injury(RSI) and back awareness programme, it reduced days lost to backinjuries from 74 in 1990 to 21 in 1992.
The Wellness Forum was launched in 1992 by a group of companiesto promote research and provide information on workplace healthprogrammes. It has 35 members, including Glaxo, Grand Metropolitan,British Telecom, Whitbread and the Post Office. Dr Robert Smith,its chairman, says: 'Health programmes are a positive help to staffbut I don't think that there is any evidence that they discriminateagainst staff who don't want to participate.' But when it comes tousing smoking as a test in recruitment, it is down to theindividual to choose. 'People who smoke should now accept that theyhave imposed limitations on themselves in terms of jobopportunities,' he says.
Health programmes do not have to go hand in hand withdiscriminatory policies. Mobil Oil, a Wellness Forum good practiceaward-winner, has introduced pre-employment assessments andemployee health screenings governed by strict rules ofconfidentiality and sensitivity.
The pre-employment assessment looks at how work practices wouldexacerbate an applicant's existing health problems. Kate Goodwin,occupational health adviser for Mobil Oil, runs the in-house healthpromotion programme for employees: 'We don't screen out at all. Ithas to remain voluntary - you can't police individuals,' she says.
One employee, Paul Lewis, a business analyst, underwent thecompany health checks and was advised to lose weight. A programmedesigned by the company's occupational health department over 18months resulted in a loss of 22lb. 'There was no overt pressure onme to lose the weight but it was suggested that I should takebetter care of my health,' he says. 'The decision to do somethingwas entirely personal. I'm generally much fitter and it's made abig difference to my lifestyle.'
Other companies may not be so generous. The use of lifestylefactors in recruitment and work practices raises the spectre ofmanagement, with little understanding of the complexities ofbehavioural factors, creating real problems for those least able tomake changes.
There is evidence that health choices are affected as much bysocio-economic factors as by individual actions. The Black Reportin 1980, and Margaret Whitehead's follow-up, The Health Divide, in1992, established the argument that risky health behaviour isaffected by elements out of the individual's control such as foodprices, housing conditions and community services.
Whitehead also suggests that tobacco and alcohol help people tocope - small pleasures, she says, 'to make depressing circumstancesbearable'. 'In some workplaces, for example,' she says, 'smokingcan be the only accepted reason for taking a break.'
(Photograph omitted)
