Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout085-89 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043 85-89 Ordinance No. nmUUmnn__ Passedm_m_ u .. m _~. mu19 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING ALL CITY FACILITIES "SMOKE-FREE" WHEREAS, The U.S. Surgeon General has named smoking "Public Enemy Number One"; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager, via Administrative Order 1.31, has restricted City employees from smoking in City facilities, on City grounds, and while operating City vehicles/equipment; and, WHEREAS, this action was taken to promote the health, safety, and welfare of City Employees and enhance a positive working environment; and, WHEREAS, Council desires to further enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the general public while in City facilities and to further promote the positive work environment for City employees as established by Administrative Order 1.31; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, 5 of the elected members concurring. Section 1. That all City facilities are declared smoke-free. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to enforce the smoke-free environment by removing ash receptacles and posting signs declaring a smoke-free environment at all City of Dublin facilities. Passed this 25th day of September , 1989 /./;J ~ ~~~/ ~or - Pr~~ing Officer ,-, Attest: /~ ~~ ../M . -tierk of Cou cil I ltM-eby certify that ct\p1e$ of this Ord;noncc/Res()lu~ion were posted in t~~ Gfy 0' DuhEr! in accordance with Section 731.25 of tho It.io Revised Code. I / ___jA !~c i-:-> 'y J}. tw~ Clerk of COuhciJ, Dublin, Ohio MEMORANDUM TO: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager FROM: Dana L. McDaniel, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Ordinance Declaring City Facilities Smoke-Free DATE: September 15, 1989 1. Executive Summary: A smoke-free environment has been implemented for City Staff via Administrative Order l.31. It has been a success in both reduc- ing the number of smokers on City Staff and creating a more positive work environment. The goal of this report/memorandum is to advise you that a smoke-free environment need be enhanced 100% by passing legislation to prohibit the general public from smoking in City facilities. II. Background Information: A. Medical Evidence has established that: * SMOKERS have twice the risk of dying from heart attacks. * SMOKERS die of strokes three times as often as nonsmokers. * SMOKERS who are over 35 and use oral contraceptives are in a particularly high risk group for heart attacks and stroke. * SMOKING is the cause of about 30% of all cancers - the single largest cause. * SMOKING is responsible for more than 80-90% of lung cancer cases. * SMOKING will soon make lung cancer the number-one cancer killer of American women. * SMOKING increases the risk of miscarriage, lowers birth weight, and raises both the chances of complications at delivery and the likelihood of health problems during infancy. * SMOKING-related disorders are estimated to cause about 350,000 premature deaths each year. Evidence now indicates that "passive smoking" is also harmful to health. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 500 to 5,000 nonsmokers die each year of lung cancer caused by other's cigarettes. Studies have revealed that nonsmokers who live or work with smokers will inhale significant amounts of nicotine. One such study suggests that if the smoker smokes two packs a day the nonsmoker spouse ends up with the equivalent amount of chemicals as a person who smokes up to three cigarettes a day. When you consider that most workers spend more hours on the job than non-sleeping hours at home this means that the impact of smoking employees on nonsmoking employees must be even greater. A University of California/San Diego study has found that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from co-workers over a 20 year span produced the extent of respiratory impairment that would normally be found in a light smoker (defined in the study as someone who smokes about 10 cigarettes a day). . . Numerous studies have established that absenteeism in smokers is significantly higher than for nonsmokers. One study sets the rate at 33-45%. Another study concludes that smoking results in 81 million "excess" days of job absenteeism. Similarly the mortality rate is higher for smokers than non-smokers. This comes into play in the costs of health insurance, disability and life insurance, workers' compensation rates, Social Security and Medicare programs. One study concludes that average insurance cost is $275 per smoker annually as compared with nonsmokers. Furthermore smokers are generally less productive. One study estimates that "smoking breaks" account of a loss of 18.2 days per smoking employee annually. This all translates into an important fact for employers. Every time a smoker is employed you are hiring someone who is likely to be absent more often, who may die prematurely, and who is likely to boost your insurance costs. B. Actions Taken: A. A smoke-free environment has been implemented for all City employees via Administrative Order 1.31. The legal realities were that the City faced significant liability if it continued to take no action while confronted with the growing body of medical evidence confirming the health hazards of breathing passive smoke. The issue facing management was "What to include in a smoke-free environment". The following options were before you: 1. Smoker Segregation: Place smokers and nonsmokers in different work areas. If necessary use partitions or other barriers. This option was not feasible due to the restrictions of City facilities. 2. Workstation Smoking Ban: Prohibit smoking at workstations and other common areas but designate a ventilated area for smoking such as a lounge. This option was not feasible due to the lack of space available for such a lounge or designated area. Possible areas identified presented either health or safety concerns. 3. Smoking Cessation Programs: An employer-sponsored smoking cessation program. Sixteen (16) employees took advantage of this program with a success rate of 88%. 4. Total Smoking Ban: The total prohibition of smoking at the employer's facil- ities. This option was chosen to be implemented and due to fairness/equity and safety was extended to include a ban throughout City facilities, grounds, and while operating vehicles/equipment. . 5. Refusing to Hire Smokers: Smokers, per Supreme Court Rulings, are not a protected class. Mr. Harding has adopted a policy, whereby preference is given to the nonsmoking candidate when selection between two candidates is extremely competitive. Candidates who are preferred for a position and smoke are advised of the smoke-free environment and are hired contingent upon their willingness to comply with Administrative Order 1.31. c. Implementation: Given the previous options and survey results of employees, there was no doubt smoking should be eliminated from the workplace. All the economic and health factors led to the same conclusion. The problem reached a point of a total ban on smoking. As a result, management developed a plan to make the transition through a series of phases. The first phase was to tell employees that the policy was forthcoming. Second, partial restrictions were implemented on smoking in certain areas and increased the ban while providing a stop smoking assistance program, furthermore, providing a period of time where the rule, although in place, will not result in discipline and communicate a deadline to begin compliance. Finally, implement the total ban. Of course, if there surfaces a certified collective bargaining represent- ative for the employees involved than effects bargaining will be in order. D. Results: The total smoking ban has drastically improved certain work areas of the City, providing a more positive and professional work environment. Of sixteen (16) individuals participating in the cessation program, fourteen (14) are still nonsmokers with the other two still having access to therapy with no additional charges. The long run effects should enhance the positive work environment and image of City employees, as well as, enhance our up-coming self-insurance program. III. Issue-At-Hand: City Employees have brought to my attention that visitors to City facil- ities are continuing to smoke. It is my understanding that the City Administration cannot ban smoking from City facilities and can enforce such a policy on the general public only if legislation is in place to support such a ban. It is my recommendation, that for the health, safety, and support of a smoke-free environment, that City Council pass legislation to ban smoking by the general public in City facilities. Attached is an Ordinance for your review and, hopefully, recommendation to Council.