Kinks in Michigan's Workplace Smoking Ban Still Being Worked Out

It's been four months since Michigan's new workplace smoking ban went into effect on May 1, 2010, but it's clear that the people and politicians of the state are still trying to figure out exactly what it means for them. Just this week, MLive.com reported that several dozen veterans living at a Grand Rapids veterans' home gathered to protest their residence's designation as a "workplace" on account of the numerous nurses and staff members stationed there to ensure their comfort. Setting aside the obvious negative effects of continued smoking on already-frail Vietnam and Korean War veterans, their protest raises some important questions both about the reach of government and the inherent uncertainty that accompanies even the most well-written statutes.

As an employee of a business whose every employee except for myself--from the boss on down--is a regular smoker, I'm in a position to point out some of the fuzzy areas that surround any piece of legislation, even a supposedly straightforward one like Michigan's workplace smoking ban.

The veterans' home issue seems simple at first: is it a home or a workplace? That of course depends on the definition of "veterans' home." In one interpretation, a veterans' home is a hospital, existing to serve the medical needs of ailing veterans of long-ago wars who might otherwise not be able to afford such care, and is thus a workplace. In another, a veterans' home is a place of residence, a state-financed home for older individuals who, like many old or disabled folks, lack the means to put a roof over their own heads. It's a tough call, but clearly a disinterested observer would have to say any veterans' home, owing both to the medical needs of its residents and the fact that they live on-site full-time, is a nursing home--both a residence and a workplace.

The real conundrum arises when we apply this standard to other organizations. Are senior living communities merely places of residence, or are they workplaces as well on account of the groundskeepers, repairmen, and leasing representatives that maintain a constant presence within their gates? Seniors are especially vulnerable to smoking-related illness, but what if they choose to smoke within the privacy of their own homes anyway? They might potentially be breaking the law.

Likewise at workplaces in which a great majority of workers smoke. We've all had the experience of walking into our local auto mechanic's garage to find the place swimming in a cloud of cigarette smoke; we may have been offended by the unself-conscious chain-smoking of the building contractor we'd called on to fix a leaky roof. Indeed, one of the primary rationales for the workplace smoking ban to bars and restaurants was customer comfort - that is, even if a number of patrons at customer service establishments would like the opportunity to light up at their tables, a greater number would like not to have to inhale their stale smoke. Persuasive arguments can be made that restaurant smoking bans are actually good for business.

But what about workplaces whose employees do not deal directly with the buying public? I work at a downstate Michigan marketing firm, which conducts business strictly over the telephone or off-site (that is, our representatives make house calls). My employer owns the building in which the firm's offices are housed and leases the space to no one else. My colleagues and I work in isolated, well-ventilated rooms. I'm the lone non-smoker in the office, and I can honestly say I wouldn't mind it if one of my colleagues lit up across the hall from me. We're often faced with intense deadline pressure, and our business is by nature competitive. I've seen friends lose clients (and, in two awful cases, their own job) since May 1 because they ran outside to have a smoke and decompress.

In other words, in the particular case of my marketing firm, some sort of "gentlemen's agreement" - an arrangement by which every current employee signed a conditional release, subject to future amendment or nullification, signifying his or her consent to allow smoking at the office. The immediate increase in productivity would make such an arrangement tempting.

It's unlikely that Michigan's legislature will carve out an exemption to the new smoking-ban law for "majority-smoker workplaces" anytime soon. But the fact that some state representatives, like Rep. Robert Dean (D-Grand Rapids), continue to stake their political fortunes on this issue is clear evidence that even laws which seem clear-cut and common-sense at first have a way of creating uncertainty and division.

At a time when our economy can scarcely afford any more stress, it might be wise to consider amending the workplace smoking ban in a manner that respects the rights and productivity-potential of smokers while continuing to protect the health of average Michiganders.

Sources:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/08/should_state-owned_veterans_ho.html contains information about the Grand Rapids Veterans' Home protest

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-23442_21974-228251--,00.html contains information about the legislative maneuvering that led to the passing of the smoking ban and key dates relating to the ban