Supervisors Order Law Drafted to Regulate Smoking on the Job

Juggling health and economics, private enterprise and government interference, county supervisors overrode objections Wednesday from the Orange County Chamber of Commerce and ordered preparation of a law requiring businesses to regulate smoking on the job.

If approved, the law would cover only workers in unincorporated county territory, not the cities. Board Chairman Roger Stanton estimated it would affect about 50,000 employees, or 4.9% of those in the county.

Supervisors, who by a 4-0 vote ordered that a draft ordinance be prepared within 30 days, said evidence from cities that have passed no-smoking laws indicated that enforcement had not been a problem.

“Individual rights are very much respected and highly cherished by this Board of Supervisors,” Stanton said. “However, it is recognized that one of the most basic rights, basic human rights, is the right to breathe.”

Supervisors previously imposed no-smoking regulations on county buildings and on many restaurants in unincorporated areas. But they excluded private businesses, agreeing to let the Chamber of Commerce develop its own voluntary plan and prove it was working.

Chamber President Lucien D. Truhill told supervisors that voluntary programs are “more efficient and more effective than government edicts.” He said employers were moving toward regulating smoking because it makes good sense economically to have healthy workers.

But the supervisors noted that a county survey in unincorporated areas last year of 200 businesses with more than 10 employees each showed that while 59.3% had a policy to designate smoke-free work areas, the rest had no policy and no plans for one.

Supervisor Harriett Wieder said she believed government should not act when there are “other ways” to solve problems. But on smoking, she said, “volunteer efforts are not adequate.”

Supervisors invited the chamber to provide information to the county administrative office, which will draw up the ordinance.

A draft prepared by the administrative office last August said employers should “provide smoke-free areas for non-smokers within existing facilities to the maximum extent possible,” but were not required to spend money to physically modify work areas.

It said any employee should have the right to designate his or her assigned work area a no-smoking zone, and in any dispute over smoking policy, “the rights of the non-smoker shall be given precedence.”

Smoking would be banned in conference rooms, restrooms, hallways and elevators under the draft from last August. At least half the space in cafeterias, lunch rooms and employee lounges also would be designated no-smoking areas.

The October, 1985, law barring smoking in most areas of county buildings “has been wonderful and it has definitely worked,” Anne Shattuck of the county Social Services Agency testified.

Since the law took effect, Shattuck said, she has not been ill due to second-hand smoke from colleagues’ cigarettes.

A contrary opinion came from Gary Skill, president of an Irvine graphics company, who said he was an ex-smoker and supported voluntary no-smoking. But he wondered if government would next dictate what type of coffee individuals must drink.

The Tobacco Institute sent the vice president of a firm that studies air quality in buildings to testify that cigarette smoke was the major cause of indoor air pollution problems in only 4% of the 125 major buildings investigated by his company since 1981.