Helping staff to stop smoking

Helping staff to stop smoking

Didn't find your answer?

We have a fair number of staff who smoke, we'd like to try to help them to quit.

We were thinking we could help them by paying for e-cigarettes for a limited time, maybe three months. It got me thinking though if this would be taxable as a benefit in kind? Or would there be any way round this?

Replies (30)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By cheekychappy
28th Apr 2016 09:50

A member of staff has a gambling addiction.

I’m going to provide them with £500 in Ladbrokes vouchers.

Do you think this will be a taxable benefit?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Lship
28th Apr 2016 09:59

If E-cigarettes prove to create long term health issues (not saying they do or don't) are you not leaving yourself open for problems down the line by 'promoting' them to staff? Just a thought....

Thanks (1)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
28th Apr 2016 10:04

and your smokers............?

Would presumably react that you are an interfering *insert very rude words*

Leave staff to their (legal) vices, and your moral high ground at home.

I say this as a life long non-smoker, non gambler, and occasional drunk.

Thanks (3)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
28th Apr 2016 10:06

Well, I am sure e-cigarettes are safe, and I am sure the courts will always consider them safe, but let us just suppose that in twenty years time they are possibly considered harmful and an ex member of staff remembers you "supplied"  and then instructs a legal team to deal with the matter on their behalf.

I would not ever consider supplying in effect pharmaceuticals to a member of staff, just do the H & S review and consider what might happen.

If you want to help staff any service delivery should be via a third party professional (doctor, say) where you can point to reliance on that party's professional skills and that your actions were responsible and reasonable but frankly the only assistance that might (have not thought fully through) be appropriate is offering counselling/therapy re a quit programme.

Why do you consider this is something an employer ought to consider providing?

 

 

Thanks (0)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
28th Apr 2016 10:15

Sack all the smokers and only employ people that do not smoke. Job done.

Thanks (5)
By Duggimon
28th Apr 2016 10:21

Stop giving them breaks

Do your part in helping them to quit by rescinding all smoking breaks leaving them with the bare minimum breaks allowed by law and ban all smoking from your premises, inside and out.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Andy556:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
28th Apr 2016 10:36

Obviously a considered

Duggimon wrote:

Do your part in helping them to quit by rescinding all smoking breaks leaving them with the bare minimum breaks allowed by law and ban all smoking from your premises, inside and out.

Obviously a considered approach to HR, we can round up those of more ample girth next week.

Why has the world become populated with a lot of people who wish to control the behaviour of others?

(Vested interest-I carry far too much weight and whilst I quit cigarettes a few years ago I did so by taking up smoking very pleasant cigars which save me no money given their cost but have improved my breathing compared with cigarettes)

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By Duggimon
28th Apr 2016 10:43

Not really the same thing

DJKL wrote:

Obviously a considered approach to HR, we can round up those of more ample girth next week.

Why has the world become populated with a lot of people who wish to control the behaviour of others?

 

Not so much controlling the behaviour of others as managing the impact of their anti-social behaviour. So long as I don't have to breathe the smoke, inside or outside, and I don't have to smell it off them then they can do what they like. Smokers are entirely unable to manage either of those things though.

This is speaking as a long term smoker who quit a couple of years ago btw, I'm not entirely unsympathetic but I think the days of businesses pandering to anti-social behaviour from their staff should be a relic of the past.

Thanks (2)
Replying to SXGuy:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
28th Apr 2016 11:00

One man's meat is another.........

Duggimon wrote:

DJKL wrote:

Obviously a considered approach to HR, we can round up those of more ample girth next week.

Why has the world become populated with a lot of people who wish to control the behaviour of others?

 

Not so much controlling the behaviour of others as managing the impact of their anti-social behaviour. So long as I don't have to breathe the smoke, inside or outside, and I don't have to smell it off them then they can do what they like. Smokers are entirely unable to manage either of those things though.

This is speaking as a long term smoker who quit a couple of years ago btw, I'm not entirely unsympathetic but I think the days of businesses pandering to anti-social behaviour from their staff should be a relic of the past.

There are quite a few things that I consider antisocial but I would not dream of imposing my certainties as to what is/is not anti social upon others, such an imposition would itself be one of the acts I would consider antisocial.

 

Thanks (2)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
28th Apr 2016 11:11

Employer control

DJKL wrote:
Why has the world become populated with a lot of people who wish to control the behaviour of others?
Does an employer not have a right to direct his employees during working hours? Is there a reason you think that not allowing people additional breaks to indulge a private vice is abuse of that right?

There is, as has already been mentioned, the fact that smoking does affect others. There are plenty of laws that seek to control behaviour where it affects other people. Why should the right of someone to smoke trump the right of those that don't wish to breathe smoke?

DJKL wrote:
There are quite a few things that I consider antisocial but I would not dream of imposing my certainties as to what is/is not anti social upon others.
The effects of second-hand smoke go a bit beyond being simply antisocial. Anecdotal evidence I know, but my wife and I both find breathing more difficult if exposed to smoke for more than a brief period. That's before you consider actual scientific studies on the subject,

As for your not wishing to impose your certainties on others, do you mean you are happy for your neighbour to play loud music 24 hours a day? After all, that is their personal choice and simply anti-social.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
28th Apr 2016 11:26

Sleeping dogs

stepurhan wrote:

DJKL wrote:
Why has the world become populated with a lot of people who wish to control the behaviour of others?
Does an employer not have a right to direct his employees during working hours? Is there a reason you think that not allowing people additional breaks to indulge a private vice is abuse of that right?

There is, as has already been mentioned, the fact that smoking does affect others. There are plenty of laws that seek to control behaviour where it affects other people. Why should the right of someone to smoke trump the right of those that don't wish to breathe smoke?

DJKL wrote:
There are quite a few things that I consider antisocial but I would not dream of imposing my certainties as to what is/is not anti social upon others.
The effects of second-hand smoke go a bit beyond being simply antisocial. Anecdotal evidence I know, but my wife and I both find breathing more difficult if exposed to smoke for more than a brief period. That's before you consider actual scientific studies on the subject,

As for your not wishing to impose your certainties on others, do you mean you are happy for your neighbour to play loud music 24 hours a day? After all, that is their personal choice and simply anti-social.

I think my objection is more down to the motive test,  the original statement with which I took issue was  along the lines"do your bit to help them quit"  it is hardly a reflection of an employer implementing the terms of the contract of employment, it is more akin to a mission statement.

We can debate endlessly the ideas of rights, digging into the depth of jurisprudence and moral philosophy (the soft philosophy option at Edinburgh),  but you know and I know that there will be no moment of epiphany and it is somewhat off topic re this thread, so let us forego the pleasure of jousting over "The Rights of Man" etc.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
Anyone Without A Sense Of Humour Is At The Mercy Of Everyone Else
By WellHeeled
03rd May 2016 21:38

Cigarette smoke stinks. It is not nice for anyone staff/employees come into contact with and will deter business with some.
Being bigger than you might think a good weight, you don't smell bad. Nothing wrong with a full bodied person, but smoking gets up the noses of others.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By HeavyMetalMike
28th Apr 2016 10:31

My new years resolution was to start toking on these new fangled "bong type things" as they look so cool and fashionable and I could walk around in my own little cloud of smoke. I could even get my arm or neck tattooed too like all the rest.

But then I started filing tax returns and forgot about the above excitement.

Thanks (3)
By SteveHa
28th Apr 2016 11:13

Basic e-cigs can be had for as little as £7 (I wouldn't recommend the very cheap as quality can be very poor). I have seen, this week, an e-cig and tank that retails for in excess of £1,000, which is obviously ridiculous.

However, as a basic starter, something for around £15 should be sufficient. Add to that the cost of juice which is around £4 for 10ml (stay well away from the £1 shop stuff. Reputable manufacturers use pharmaceutical grade glycerin. Cheap stuff doesn't. Not to mention that reputable companies actively self-regulate by agreement (companies such as Totally Wicked, Liberty Flights, Crystal Vapes etc.)

And whilst e-cigs can get someone off the stinkies (3.5 years for me), they don't necessarilly. I know several people who are what I call recreational vapers and hardened smokers.

And then you have to consider that you may be getting them in to a potentially expensive habit (my current rig cost over £100, and I have a new one coming in the post - Doh!).

Mind you, still cheaper than smoking, and I am testament to the apparent health benefits. I can now run up the stairs and get there in one go, I walk for miles, and took up cycling. None of these would have been possible whilst I was still smoking.

Thanks (3)
By mrme89
28th Apr 2016 11:14

Has anyone considered that these employees work in quality control for a cigarette manufacturer?

Thanks (2)
Glenn Martin
By Glenn Martin
28th Apr 2016 11:15

Too Soft

Your idea is too soft and I cannot see it worker on a number of levels.

If you are passionate about helping them, give them some time off to attend NHS clinics to stop it and get patches etc.

Buying them vapes is not the answer.

If you have any over weight staff ban them from any Greggs shops in the area.

 

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
28th Apr 2016 11:34

Why would you pay for E vaping.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/e-cigarettes-are-no-safer-than-smoking-tobacco-scientists-warn/

Personally I think you need to be careful.   I know many in the NHS who think it is another cancer waiting to happen as e cigarettes are not regulated enough.   NHS Glasgow have banned them at their premises. 

As a ex smoker I loved my cigarettes and don,t get me wrong 8 years off them I still have to stay away from the beer garden.   

However I am now saddened they are allowed advertising as huge amount of Kids now think they are safe  and are vaping it is a huge problem in the schools shame after all the hard work. 

If someone wants to smoke they will smoke and that is up to them.  I hated people lecturing me about smoking. 

But from what I notice at my business centre I think fellow business some of the staff are vaping even more then they were smoking.  A year on not one of them has given up. 

It is a bit like giving a heroin addict methadone instead of them being addicted to heroin they are now addicted to methadone and drink a lot. ( There is a chemist near our work ) it is just another crutch .  I would be [***] off if I was non smoker 

So what about the staff that don,t smoke are you going to reward them.  At the end of the day the best think for me was not being allowed to smoke on the premises and the ban coming in as the beer and cigarette was my downfall. 

What about instead of paying for the e cigarette which legally for the future  i would not .  Get your staff to work as a team to try and give up in a fun way like a pot of money to be shared by them if they make it and let them restart as many times as it takes.   The hardest thing for me was breaking my habit coffee cigarette.   We did it in our office I brought bags of fruit everyday so the smokers could munch instead of smoking and everyone became healthier or give them a free swimming or gym membership you need things to occupy you when you are trying to break the habit, going out for a e cigarette is following the same routine. 

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
28th Apr 2016 11:55

@ Sarah Douglas

I hate to disagree, and linking to one study claiming that they are bad, rather than the countless studies that say the opposite is akin to Government supressing information that would aid Brexit.

Also, indicating that people who vape haven't given up is misleading. No credible study has suggested that e-cigs contain any carcinogenic threats whatsoever. Unlike cigarettes which are a positive minefield.

BAT have recently conducted tests where vaping was shown to have an effect on the lungs similar to fresh air, which was drastically different from cigarettes which were shown to be extremely destructive.

I don't question the testers methods, and in fact fail to see how they could benefit from this result. Surely it would harm their principal trade.

Thanks (1)
Replying to flightdeck:
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
28th Apr 2016 13:22

okay

SteLacca wrote:

I hate to disagree, and linking to one study claiming that they are bad, rather than the countless studies that say the opposite is akin to Government supressing information that would aid Brexit.

Also, indicating that people who vape haven't given up is misleading. No credible study has suggested that e-cigs contain any carcinogenic threats whatsoever. Unlike cigarettes which are a positive minefield.

BAT have recently conducted tests where vaping was shown to have an effect on the lungs similar to fresh air, which was drastically different from cigarettes which were shown to be extremely destructive.

I don't question the testers methods, and in fact fail to see how they could benefit from this result. Surely it would harm their principal trade.

As I mentioned it was experience in my business centre that none of the Vapers had given up.  I clearly stated that.  I did not say it was a UK statistic. 

The point I was making re the article and agree maybe not very well.  There are plenty of voices extremely concerned about their safety as their is from those who say they are safe.  The simple fact is they are not regulated strongly enough  and god knows what is in some of them.    Legal Highs are legal but that does not make them safe or does it make drink safe.  Who do you think are behind the vaping companies I suspect the cigarette companies. Do you honestly expect us not to question BAT.?

 

The fact of the matter is they have not been around long enough for long term tests to say whether they are safe our not. 

Why would you put your practice under risk for a claim they still contain chemical even if it is less but the fact is as a practice if you pay for them and a member of your staff becomes ill then you could potentially have a claim against your practice and be liable. 

Thanks (0)
By Mouse007
28th Apr 2016 12:16

Why the objection to nicotine ?

 

It’s no more harmful than caffeine and is found in many plants including potatoes, tomatoes and aubergines.

Smokers smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar. I think we should be a little more understanding of the addiction illness, in particular those who don’t have it.

I’ve been on a mission to save lives over the last three years, family, friends and clients have all switched. Nothing moral high ground about it.

Over the same time I’ve read countless crap peddled by uninformed meddlers fuelled by junk science commissioned by the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. Some of it repeated above.

The real studies have proved that vaping is at least 95% safer than somking. That’s the only comparative measurement you should be making, no one is suggesting giving e-cigs to non smokers. I’d have no fear about future claims from encouraging a smoker to switch, that’s the advice Cancer Research, Public Health England and now the Royal College of Physicians are giving.

Back to the original question, would the expenditure be for the benefit of the business? I’d say yes. Heathier more productive staff taking less breaks, the payback could be enormous.

Staff welfare costs can be allowable, but HMRC might not like it. So what? Even after paying the tax the reward could well exceed the cost.

And the cost? well I’m down to 34p a day (from £12.50)

Just do it.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Howard Marks
28th Apr 2016 12:16

Hire a stripper

And urge your employees to stick their £10 notes in her g-string instead of sending it up in flames.  Engage said stripper on a self-employed basis and split the profits 50/50.  All cash of course, no need to declare your share.

 

Win win!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By greenhat
28th Apr 2016 13:05

Thanks for all the replies

Blimey I wasn't expecting so much of a response! 

We were considering this because we like to think we're a responsible employer, because our business is health & leisure, and because our employees suggested it! We certainly had no intention of imposing anything on anyone.

But now the potential pitfalls have been pointed out I think we'll leave it there.

Just out interest though (and not related to tax), one part of the business has a licensed bar and staff get quite a decent discount there on drinks. Is this also a bad idea?

Thanks (1)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
28th Apr 2016 13:09

Not if they pay more than cost.

Your vaping benefits may fall within the new trivial benefits exemption, incidentally.

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
28th Apr 2016 13:17

It is difficult

The fact you asked the question shows you care for your employees, but hopefully all the responses maybe gave you some other ideas or as you said also highlight some of the pitfalls. 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By rememberscarborough
28th Apr 2016 13:18

It's sad that an employer tries to be caring about their employees health but is far more likely to end up being sued down the line. Wonder if my children or their children will grow up in a society that doesn't seek to find someone to blame for everything no matter how good the intentions are...

Thanks (2)
Replying to SteveHa:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
28th Apr 2016 13:31

Former surname?

R Thomas wrote:

Smoking is bad for you, that is a proven fact, however, what right does an employer have to dictate what staff can and cannot do? The usual argument is that their smoking could affect other staff. 

Are you going to ban them from drinking too, after all they could cause an accident in the workplace whilst hung over. 

Are you going to ban them from parking in your car park in case they reverse over another member of staff? 

How about banning sex in case they catch HIV and spread it to other members of staff at a boozy Christmas party. 

Overweight? They should definitely be banned in case they squash another member of staff. 

Meat eaters? Well that causes stomach & bowel cancer and means other staff have to cover for them while they have months of treatment.

Maybe they should have to obtain your approval before buying a dog, just in case they bring it into the office one day and it bites someone. 

Of course, those selfish employees who have children are a definite health hazard, as they bring into the office all those nasty bugs and diseases that children catch. 

Will you be instructing them which way to vote in the freferendum also? 

In short, your employees are doing you a favour by working for you, you should be making sure they are  happy including the smokers, not trying to thrust your personal prejudices on them.  

Did your surname used to be Swipe, by any chance? Or Sole perhaps?

Thanks (3)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
28th Apr 2016 13:33

I agree in General with you scarborough

But is this case we are talking about a lot of the research have been paid for by the cigarette companies.  They do have a history.   We do not have enough evidence to say they are safe or not safe and the effect they will have in the long term .  They still have chemicals in them so by paying for them you are supporting putting chemicals in your staff even if they are less then real cigarettes. 

I don,t know for certain but I suspect it could be a legal mind field.  I am only looking at this from a business point of view and not as should you or should you not smoke. 

Thanks (1)
By Democratus
28th Apr 2016 14:04

Leaving the social / moral issues aside

OP quote

"We have a fair number of staff who smoke, we'd like to try to help them to quit.

We were thinking we could help them by paying for e-cigarettes for a limited time, maybe three months. It got me thinking though if this would be taxable as a benefit in kind? Or would there be any way round this?"

Response

We have a fair number of staff who smoke, we'd like to try to help them to quit.

Response: Those who request help could be assisted.

It got me thinking though if this would be taxable as a benefit in kind?

Me too...can't think why not.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By In a Daze
28th Apr 2016 14:33

It is their choice

If your staff want to smoke it is up to them. Is it really any of your business? Most doctors run a stop smoking group maybe you could offer them time off so they could attend.

Thanks (0)