Companies restrict the use of tobacco in the workplace.

In the newsroom of the Denver Post, reporters and editors cope with a company ban on smoking by gnawing on licorice roots and chewing on unlit cigars. Broward Davis & Associates, a surveying and consulting firm in Tallahassee, refuses to hire anyone who smokes. New England Telephone employees can take a puff in only half the company's rest rooms, and workers at United Technologies' Hartford headquarters must refrain from lighting up in any public work area.

As corporate America comes to terms wilh the antismoking fervor that has gripped much of the public, more and more firms are regulating the use of tobacco in the workplace. According to a study by the Bureau of National Affairs, about 35% of all U.S. companies restrict smoking (only 2% ban it outright) and an additional 20% are studying the issue. In many cases, companies have no choice: 17 states and hundreds of localities outlaw smoking in offices and other workplaces. The surgeon general's report last year asserting that smokers create health risks for nearby nonsmokers has encouraged companies to promote smoke-free work environments. Finally, firms are increasingly aware of the cost of having smokers on staff: higher insurance expenses and increased absenteeism.

Most companies try to accommodate their nonsmoking workers without alienating their tobacco-dependent colleagues. Many firms begin to formulate a policy by polling their staffs. When New England Telephone discovered that 70% of its 27,000 employees did not smoke, it decided to take a strong stand against tobacco. Smoking is now permitted only in certain hallways and rest rooms and in a small section of the cafeteria. Eastman Kodak has democratized the decision-making process. Employees vote on whether common work areas should be smoke-free. While smoking is generally banned in conference rooms, exceptions can be made if there are no objections from anyone present.

A company's policy often reflects its top executive's personal attitude toward smoking. Says Cynthia Ferguson, acting executive director of the American Lung Association: "We see this very clearly. Management support means everything." Ted Phillips, chairman of New England Telephone, a Boston-based company, is an ex-smoker who strongly believes smoking on the job should be limited to private offices in order to safeguard the health of all workers. That is precisely the policy of his firm. At Frosty Acres Brands, a Georgia canned-goods packager, a smoking ban is unlikely because President Louis Dell smokes almost two packs a day. But Dell acknowledges that the rights of nonsmokers should be protected. As a result, smoking is not allowed in the firm's executive conference room, and employees are free to ban smoking in their private offices.

No matter how well intentioned their bosses may be, many smokers feel persecuted by their firms' antismoking policies. "Just call me Sneaky Pete," says a salesman of novelty items who would face being fired if his smoking habit was discovered. Says he: "It's incredibly unfair. I was a smoker when they hired me, and then, out of the blue, I'm supposed to stop just because the boss says so." Some employees fear their chances for advancement may be choked off by their smoking habit, though favoritism toward nonsmokers is rarely explicit. Len Beil, director ot human resources at Pacific Northwest Bell, says a bias against smoking "could be in the back of a manager's mind

when making decisions on a promotion."

Job seekers are discovering that smoking can endanger their careers. Newspaper classified advertisements frequently specify that employers are looking for "nonsmokers only." One of the first questions asked of job applicants at Vanguard Electronic Tool in Redmond, Washington, is "Do you smoke?" If the answer is yes, the interview is over. That is perfectly legal. On the other hand, federal laws forbid an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or marital status.

Many smokers may secretly welcome the corporate crusade against smoking. Says Robert Rosner, executive director of the Seattle-based Smoking Policy Institute, a consulting firm that advises companies on how to formulate smoking policies: "The fact is, most smokers want to quit." Many of them embrace the new corporate activism as an incentive to give up tobacco once and for all. At Rhode Island's Newport Daily News, it was the smokers who unanimously voted to ban smoking from the premises, although taking a drag is not a cause for dismissal.

More and more companies that have imposed restrictions on smoking are attempting to help their employees kick the habit. BMC Software, a Texas company that prohibits smoking on the job, has sent employees to anti-smoking hypnosis sessions. Abbott Laboratories hires smokers but strongly urges them to sign a pledge to take a company-sponsored workshop that teaches people how to stop smoking. The five sessions cost employees $30, but if they stay off cigarettes for four months, Abbott refunds the money.

Despite the changes taking place, antismoking lobbyists continue to press for stricter limitations on smoking in the workplace. Last week the American Public Health Association and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen Health Research Group petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to impose an emergency rule that would eliminate or restrict smoking in virtually all indoor work sites. While the government is not expected to take any immediate action, the pressure is sure to grow. Smokers, after all, make up a shrinking minority. Nonsmokers, like any other large majority, know the numbers-and the clout-are increasingly on their side.

Barbara Rudolph

Time