E-cigarettes popularity forces firms to review policies

November 11, 2013

ecigar

When John Castellano feels like a smoke, he simply heads to the break room at Kraft Foods’s factory in Garland, Texas.

The technician has been able to indulge his habit in common areas at work since he started using electronic cigarettes, which emit vapor rather than smoke.

E-cigarettes are “very liberating,” said Castellano, 39, who used to join the other cigarette addicts at the factory’s designated smoking area.

Twenty-five years after companies began banning smoking in the workplace, the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes is forcing them to review their policies.

Many corporations still ban “vaping” as they wait to see if the FDA will regulate e-cigarettes as strictly as regular smokes. Yet Kraft and Walgreen allow local managers to set the rules. Smaller firms, especially creative agencies and Web startups, have already adopted a more laissez-faire attitude.

US e-cigarettes sales will triple this year to $1.5 billion, according to Euromonitor International. They’re expected to accelerate as traditional tobacco makers muscle into a market previously dominated by small players.

Both Altria Group and Reynolds American, the biggest US tobacco sellers, are expanding distribution of e-cigarettes. Lorillard controls about half of the USmarket with blu eCigs, which it acquired last year.

So far, small companies where bosses can monitor whether e-cigarettes bother co-workers are more likely to allow vaping.

“It is all new to us,” said Ged King, president of the Sales Factory, a 35-employee marketing firm based here. He looked up in surprise during a staff meeting a few months ago to see an employee vaping. Now several employees do it, presumably “to help them kick the smoking habit,” he said.

“We’ve not put a policy in place because nobody has complained,” King said.

The technology gives users seeking anonymity an edge. E-cigarettes heat liquid nicotine into an inhaled vapor, dissipating faster than cigarette smoke. So workers more worried about being seen than smelled puff e-cigarettes in empty offices and bathrooms, according to posts on the E-Cigarette Forum website, where visitors share favorite flavors and vaping lounges, plus tips on how to avoid offending co-workers.

“I’m doing it on the down-low and just close the door,” said Dennis Rumpf, a construction manager in Charlotte, N.C. He declined to identify his employer because it didn’t authorize him to speak publicly.

Rumpf, 37, said he alternates between menthol and classic tobacco flavors in the e-cigarettes he’s been using for six months, after 19 years as a smoker.

“I have people come into my office all the time and I’m sure they’d say something if they noticed anything,” he said.

Web developer Adam Gray has won his boss’s approval to use e-cigarettes at his Minnetonka, Minnesota, office.

“It makes him more productive and sets him on a path for better health,” said Paul Hanson, chief operating officer of TrackIF LLC, a firm that monitors price changes across the Web.

Gray, 27, can “vape all day, a puff here and there” without leaving his desk, he said.

Kraft doesn’t have a companywide e-cigarettes policy and allows managers to make their own rules as long as they abide by local and state laws. Walgreen, the largest US drugstore retailer, also leaves decisions to office managers.

However, health and regulatory uncertainties have prompted many employers to treat e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes, said Paula Andersen, a registered nurse at Buck Consultants, a human- resources firm that advises companies on health programs.

“We recommend that if companies do have a tobacco-free policy that they call electronic cigarettes out as well,” said Andersen, who declined to identify clients.

Exxon Mobil and General Motors allow vaping in designated smoking areas, while CVS Caremark and Lowe’s ban e-cigarettes and regular smokes. Levi Strauss & Co. forces vapers to go outside.

“For the most part, people who vape are treated as smokers,” said LeeAnn Blohm, who favors chocolate peanut butter and butterscotch e-cigarettes. She declined to identify her employer in Austin, Texas, which doesn’t allow vaping inside.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 6,2020

Washington D.C., May 5: Working from home has become the new normal ever since the outbreak of coronavirus and in today's time the work duties can be easily dealt with by means of mobile devices at home.

However, this easy use of technology, mobile devices for that matter, has the potential to blur the fine line between work and the other daily life routines.

But, contrary to the belief, a study at the University of Jyvaskyla reveals that the mixing of work and other daily life routines may have more benefits than previously assumed, and points to the importance of boundary-spanning communication.

A smartphone enables phone calls, email, and file transfers from the comfort of home. The study shows that there may be more effective ways to maximise the benefits of smartphone use, without diminishing employees' flexibility and the use of these technologies.

"People often forget to talk about positive effects, such as autonomy and freedom the employees gain when they have the flexibility to schedule their work," said Postdoctoral Researcher Ward van Zoonen from JYU, who with his colleagues examined the use of smartphones for work matters outside working hours.

The study paid special attention to the benefits of talking about domestic matters with the immediate supervisor outside the working hours given to an employee.

"This reduces the conflict between work and other life," van Zoonen said.

"If people in an organisation strive for more dialogue between employees' different life domains, it is possible to create a functional environment where people can talk about different matters."

The research findings show that when employees communicate across boundaries and talk at work about their life in other respects, they can receive new kinds of support and understanding from their immediate supervisor.

"This kind of communication creates a low threshold for contacting one's supervisor, which helps employees build a balance between the different domains of their lives and strengthens their organisational identification," said Professor Anu Sivunen describing the findings.

This means that tight working time restrictions to protect employees might not be beneficial after all, if they hinder reaching the positive results indicated in this research.

For the study, a survey was taken of 367 employees who were asked questions such as -- how much they talk about their work with their family, and how much they talk about their family with their immediate supervisor.

"Both supervisors and their employees answered the surveys, and the study actually focused on their mutual communication," Sivunen said.

"Usually people at workplaces are interested in how communication within the work community is succeeding. It is often forgotten how an immediate supervisor can take an employer's other life into account and thereby help the employee gain work-related benefits."

"Communication with one's immediate supervisor during flexible working hours, also on matters other than work, could ease the daily lives of many employees if they could share the possible challenges of their family life or free time with their supervisor in these settings," Sivunen added.

According to the study, such a practice could make the supervisor aware of the employee's situation as he/she works from home and the related impacts on their work performances.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 20,2020

The health and future of every child and adolescent worldwide is under immediate threat from ecological degradation, climate change and exploitative marketing practices that push fast food, sugary drinks, alcohol and tobacco at children, said a new report on Wednesday.

No single country is adequately protecting children's health, their environment and their futures, according to the report by a commission of over 40 child and adolescent health experts from around the world.

The commission, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations children's agency, Unicef, and medical journal the Lancet, found that while the poorest countries need to do more to support their children's ability to live healthy lives, excessive carbon emissions --disproportionately from wealthier countries -- threaten the future of all children.

"Despite improvements in child and adolescent health over the past 20 years, progress has stalled, and is set to reverse," said former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Co-Chair of the Commission, Helen Clark.

"It has been estimated that around 250 million children under five years old in low- and middle-income countries are at risk of not reaching their developmental potential, based on proxy measures of stunting and poverty. But of even greater concern, every child worldwide now faces existential threats from climate change and commercial pressures," Clark said.

The report, titled "A Future for the World's Children?", includes a new global index of 180 countries, comparing performance on child flourishing and sustainability, with a proxy for greenhouse gas emissions, and equity, or income gaps.

India ranked 131 among the 180 countries in the index.

The index shows that children in Norway, the Republic of Korea, and the Netherlands have the best chance at survival and well-being, while children in the Central African Republic, Chad, Somalia, Niger and Mali face the worst odds.

However, when the authors took per capita CO2 emissions into account, the top countries trail behind: Norway ranked 156, the Republic of Korea 166, and the Netherlands 160.

Each of the three emits 210 per cent more CO2 per capita than their 2030 target.

The US, Australia, and Saudi Arabia are among the ten worst emitters.

If global warming exceeds 4 degree Celsius by the year 2100 in line with current projections, this would lead to devastating health consequences for children, due to rising ocean levels, heatwaves, proliferation of diseases like malaria and dengue, and malnutrition, said the report.

The only countries on track to beat CO2 emission per capita targets by 2030, while also performing fairly (within the top 70) on child flourishing measures are: Albania, Armenia, Grenada, Jordan, Moldova, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay and Vietnam.

The report also revealed the distinct threat posed to children from harmful marketing. Evidence suggests that children in some countries see as many as 30,000 advertisements on television alone in a single year, while youth exposure to vaping (e-cigarettes) advertisements increased by more than 250 per cent in the US over two years, reaching more than 24 million young people.

Children's exposure to commercial marketing of junk food and sugary beverages is associated with purchase of unhealthy foods and overweight and obesity, linking predatory marketing to the alarming rise in childhood obesity, said the report.

The number of obese children and adolescents increased from 11 million in 1975 to 124 million in 2016 - an 11-fold increase, with dire individual and societal costs.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 5,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 5: After a woman filed a lawsuit against a diet soda company, the California court has declared that the beverage does not promise to help buyers in losing weight.

The woman had gulped down the drink for over a decade but did not lose inches as a result.

The three-judge panel declared during the hearing: "The prevalent understanding of the term in (the marketplace) is that the 'diet' version of a soft drink has fewer calories than its 'regular' counterpart."

However, the members of the US 9th circuit court have felt that the consumers tend to make out something of their own that is unreasonable and eventually hamper the reputation of brands through a deceptive allegation, reports Fox News.

The response was due to a misleading case filed against Diet Dr Pepper by Shana Becerra from Santa Rosa, California. Shana claimed that she has been addictively purchasing the low-calorie beverage for the past 13 years hoping for losing some fat but failed to lose even a single inch.

The woman also stated that the attractive and fit models misled her into believing that drink will help her in perfecting her body like them.

However, the court's decision was that advertisements are for representational purposes only. "Cannot be reasonably understood to convey any specific meaning at all," as written by Judge Jay Bybee.

Shana had last week made such allegation against Diet coke as well where the court came to a similar verdict. She claimed that she had found various studies where it is evident that the artificial sweetener aspartame used in diet beverages actually boosts weight gain.

But the artificial sweetener is approved in by the concerned administrative department and thus is used in most American drinks.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.