Cost of obedience

Smoking Ban and Cost of Obedience

Smoking ban is one of the more controversial topics because the cost of complying by the law can often result in more problems for an employer than he anticipated. Not only can they not always have customers comply with the law, there are also occasions when due to the fear of non-compliance, the employer may choose not to hire smokers. In the case on hand, we see that a restaurant owner in California is facing problems with this law because people seem to ignore the "No Smoking" signs which leads to fines which hurts the restaurant's business. Not only are there fines involved but non-compliance from some customers may actually make other customers question the integrity of the restaurant. Business is hurt not only by paying fines but also due to loss of good reputation.

California law requires "no smoking" signs in restaurants. In fact smoking is banned in most workplaces and in various public places. But placing a "no smoking" sign is not enough. There are many reasons why such a sign may actually be ignored or taken lightly by the customers and this hinders the compliance process. The owner of this restaurant for example had those signs placed in his restaurant and yet some customers ignored it. This meant $100 fine on him but since it happened repeatedly, the owner now has to pay $1,300 in fines. Apart from this, he is also expecting a visit from Occupational Safety and Health administration officials who will further investigate the root cause of the problem. The owner must find this situation frustrating because on the one hand, he wants to comply and on the other, he doesn't want to lose customers. He feels that compliance may become more costly than non-compliance if he loses customers because of smoking ban. However what he feels to realize is that there are reasons why people might be ignoring the sign and that compliance is actually far less costly than non-compliance.

In their research on the subject, Montini and Bero found that some conditions can hinder compliance with California anti-smoking law and that there were measures which could be taken to ensure better compliance. They found that "The conditions that facilitated bar owners' compliance with a smoking ban in bars included: if the cost to comply was minimal; if the bars with which they were in competition were in compliance with the smoking ban; and if there was authoritative, consistent, coordinated, and uniform enforcement. Conversely, the conditions that hindered compliance included: if the law had minimal sanctions; if competing bars in the area allowed smoking; and if enforcement was delayed or inadequate." (Montini, Bero, 2008)

During their research, Montini and Bero spoke with many bar owners and discussed the problem of compliance with the law. They found that generally they all wanted to comply because compliance meant no fines and bars had very slim margin of profits which meant they did not want to owe any money to the agencies. But they complained of "level playing field" issue. For a restaurant owner, the same problem may arise. Since there is no level playing field, compliance can be hindered. Not all restaurants in the vicinity of this restaurant would want to comply with this law and those who don't are likely to cause fewer problems for their customers. This meant customers have an option available if smoking ban is too strict at one restaurant. However, if all restaurant owners sit together and decide in favor of compliance then customers will have no choice but to follow the law.

"In order to protect their individual business interests, bar owners had to work collectively in unanimously complying with or unanimously ignoring the law. The slim profit margins at stake increased the focus on, and the salience of, even and consistently maintained enforcement so that no bar was at a competitive disadvantage. No amount of local discretion was going to provide local enforcers with a bigger stick or a better carrot to foster the magnitude of change required." (Montini & Bero, 2008)