Smokers who lose their jobs spend more time unemployed than non-smokers, new research suggests.
While it’s long been known that smokers are more likely to be unemployed, it was not known if smoking itself was in some way damaging people’s chances of employment.
Now a team of scientists in California have found that unemployed non-smokers are not only 30% more likely than smokers to be in work after a year, but also earn on average an extra $5 (£3.50) an hour than those who light up.
“We have known about the harmful health effects of tobacco use, and we have know that for now about 50 years,” said Judith Prochaska at Stanford University, who led the study. “But here is evidence to show the financial harms of tobacco use, both with success in the workplace - in terms of being rehired - and then also potentially in the differential in pay that smokers versus non-smokers receive.”
Published in the Jama Internal Medicine journal, the study involved 131 unemployed smokers and 120 unemployed non-smokers. Among their findings, the authors reported that smokers were younger, less educated and more likely to be unstably housed, in poorer health and to possess a criminal record than non-smokers. More than half of all participants had been unemployed for more than six months, while nearly 60% had left their last job because their contract ended, or they were laid off.
When the researchers followed up with 108 of the non-smokers and 109 of the smokers after 12 months, they found a pronounced difference between those who smoked and those who did not. When duration of unemployment, age, education, race and ethnicity and perceived health status were taken into account - and extreme cases removed from analysis - the team found non-smokers were 30% more likely to be employed after 12 months than smokers. In addition, among those who had found work within the year, smokers were found on average to earn just over $5 an hour less.
Linda Bauld, a professor of health policy at the University of Stirling, who was not involved in the study, said: “Amongst people that are already disadvantaged, smoking might be stacking the odds not in their favour in terms of them gaining employment.”
While the reasons behind the differences are unknown, the study sheds light on one possible factor. When the smokers were asked about their spending priorities tobacco was placed above outgoings including transport funds, mobile phone and grooming care - such as getting a haircut.
But there is much left to be unpicked. As Bauld points out, a possible increase in sick days and other factors relating to smoking could also put smokers at a disadvantage by leaving them with a less favourable employment history. In addition, the study did not delve into the reasons why employers might be less likely to hire a smoker, while the research involved a small sample and was carried out in a very health-conscious location. “We are in San Francisco Bay area, which has a low smoking prevalence and does have smoke-free laws in the workplaces,” said Prochaska.
The authors believe the study highlights the need to raise awareness of the impact of smoking, and offer greater support to those who are trying to quit.
Bauld agrees: “The key message is, for people who are already disadvantaged, that supporting them to stop smoking could improve their chances of getting a job and having better health outcomes as well,” she said. “I think this provides really useful evidence to continue to make the case for employers to take smoking cessation seriously.”
