University of Macau scholar Desmond Lam
Senior representatives of Macau’s six gaming operators have jointly presented the findings of a study on employee sentiment toward smoking lounges.
The results of the study, titled “Research Findings on Smoking Lounges in Macau Casinos”, were presented during a press conference at the Macau Tower. At the conference, two statistics in particular were repeatedly emphasized by the gaming operators.
Firstly, about 60 percent of those surveyed said that they support solutions which allow smoking lounges, and secondly, close to 90 percent of employees working in gaming areas reported an improvement in air quality in their work environments following anti-smoking measures taken by the concessionaires over the past few years.
A University of Macau (UM) study formed the basis of the findings. Led by Dr. Desmond Lam, an associate professor in hospitality and gaming management at the UM, the research included interviews with over 14,300 employees of the six resort operators working in both gaming (73 percent) and non-gaming areas (27 percent).
When the respondents were asked their opinion on whether smoking areas in casinos should exist, 60 percent of respondents said that they supported solutions that allow smoking lounges.
Respondents were presented with three options, two of which included some form of permissible smoking within integrated resorts.
While 40 percent of respondents opted for a full smoking ban in all parts of integrated resorts, 60 percent opted for either the existence of smoking lounges (47 percent) or for both smoking lounges and VIP smoking areas (13 percent). The third option was described by Lam as “the status quo.”
“We asked respondents ‘Which of the following proposals do you support the most?’, and we gave them three options. The first option is the full smoking ban; the second is to allow smoking in smoking lounges but ban it in all other areas; and the third option is to allow smoking in VIP gaming areas and in smoking lounges, but not in the mass[-market] areas,” explained Lam.
“What we found was that 40 percent of our respondents picked option one, against 60 percent that picked the other two options. Forty-seven percent of [the respondents] want to permit smoking in only smoking lounges, while 13 percent would prefer the status quo [the third option].”
For gaming staff, those closest to the harmful effects of passive smoking, the results were even narrower.
“For the gaming staff, 45 percent said they would prefer a full smoking ban, whereas 55 percent preferred [one of] the two other options, with 44 percent saying they wanted only smoking lounges,” said the UM scholar.
It is not inaccurate to say then, that 60 percent were in favor of smoking solutions. However, the inclusion of a third option broadly similar to the second may introduce a degree of misrepresentation. This was a point raised yesterday during the press conference when journalists questioned the independence of a study commissioned by the six gaming operators.
“From my experience with the operators throughout this whole process, they have been professional. So I can only say: trust my judgment, I am bound by my code of conduct. I’m an academic, a scholar, and I’m responsible for my field,” answered Lam in response to the speculation.
“My team wants to be independent and [we think] this represents the voices of the respondents,” he added. “So the facts are here.”
The UM study also highlighted that about 87 percent of employees working in gaming areas had noted that the air quality in their work environment had improved since casinos started to implement anti- smoking measures.
Employees’ current encounters with smoking lounges, which the study found overwhelmingly positive, had formed the basis for the affirmative feedback on proposals for limited smoking areas in casinos.
Meanwhile, standing as the nominated representative of the six concessionaires, Dr Ambrose So, the chairman of the board of directors for SJM voiced his support for retaining the existing smoking lounges.
“We [the operators] do not find any conflict between tobacco control and the installation of smoking lounges, as both serve the purpose of providing a smoke-free environment,” he said.
“We believe the air quality of casinos could be further improved with the introduction of more advanced specifications and stringent procedures for the smoking lounges,” added So, “and we hope that, upon [government] approval, a certain grace period will be granted to us for upgrading the existing smoking lounge facilities.”
He said that a plan with detailed specifications of the upgrade was submitted to the government in 2016, but the upgrades were still 12-18 months away from completion.
Yesterday’s press conference also featured a speech from Professor Lee Shun Cheng of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, who commented on the results of various indoor air quality tests conducted at 33 casino properties in the MSAR. The findings of a study concluded that all tested areas within the sample met Macau’s indoor air quality standards.
A statement issued jointly by the six operators yesterday affirmed their commitment to the government’s tobacco control bill, recognizing that “the health and well-being of their [operators’] employees and customers are of paramount importance.”
However, they also stand united against the implementation of a full smoking ban across all areas of integrated resorts, holding that such a prohibition would damage the development of Macau’s gaming sector and hamper its regional competitiveness.
A gaming floor smoking ban came into force in Macau on October 6, 2014. The legislation was followed a few months later by a declaration from Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture Alexis Tam, who announced his intention to push for a full smoking prohibition within the entire premises of integrated resorts.
A study released in November 2015 by international audit firm KPMG found that the economic impact of a full smoking ban could directly affect many business sectors in Macau tied to the gaming industry. The impact, the KPMG report concluded, could extend to the expenditure of goods and services being diverted outside of Macau along with a reduction in income for employees in the MSAR.
Moreover, the study, which was also commissioned by the six gaming operators, projected that a full smoking ban could lead to a GDP contraction of as much as 16 percent and a drop in total fiscal receipts of 20 percent.
The ban on smoking keeps rearing it’s ugly head in Macao, as employee groups keep complaining. But we
must consider how many customers smoke, especially Chinese Nationals; so it is important for the health of the casino industry to make the right decision; whether to outlaw or find other ways to protect non-smokers.
I am a non smoker and prefer to visit establishments that have no smoking areas, but I don’t see the need to stop a legal pursuit for persons over 18 years of age. I also agree that non-smoking employees should not be required to experience second hand smoke. But by only allowing smoking employees to work the smoking sections, we eliminate that concern. Although, I expect the next union complaints would come on behalf of non smoking employees, who earned higher tips, when working the high limit rooms, where smoking is allowed. My next suggestion would then have to be to follow the New Jersey law, which requires dealer tips to be pooled.
But where do smokers entertain their friends, if they can’t go to their favorite casino, restaurant or bar? My guess is that most invite others to their homes, where there are no smoking restrictions. But it seems this solution creates an even bigger problem, with children frequently at home. Don’t children count when we debate second hand smoke? Obviously some adults protect their children and go outside when the need for a cigarette arises; but many do not.
Clearly governments can set the standards for their work places, but the private sector should be able to do the same; as long as the non smoking employees and public are protected. And I believe this can be accomplished in smoking rooms, with superior ventilation and the requirement that employees servicing that room be smokers themselves.
I can’t imagine a smoking waiter or dealer being successful in suing his employer for second hand smoke, or finding a lawyer willing to take his case on a contingency basis.
A study, I prepared for Illinois, when they banned smoking from their casino riverboats; tells a compelling story. The analysis covered the Greater Chicago population, and compares Indiana and Illinois casino establishments for the year following the no smoking ban in Illinois. The results for the following year, was a 21.8% casino revenue decline, 14.1% fewer patrons, a 9% decline in per capita win, and a 32.8% reduction in casino taxes. Negative impacts were also felt in the St. Louis area, where two Illinois casinos compete with 4 in Missouri, and in other parts of the State, that have no nearby option for smokers. Colorado casinos, after their ban on smoking, also saw an immediate 20% decline in casino revenues.
What is hard for me to understand, is a State’s willingness to see enormous declines in tax revenues and jobs, that resulted from the casino smoking ban. Illinois’ win tax has declined from $785 million in 2007 (the year before the ban) to $426 million in 2010, a decline of $359 million or 46%. The comparisons after 2010 aren’t relevant because a new casino opened in Des Plaines, a Chicago suburb.
And what about the thousands of restaurants and bars that have seen their revenues decline because of smoking bans. Hasn’t that spurred layoffs, bankruptcies, closings and the accompanying decline in sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate and personal income taxes and more people collecting unemployment, and various forms of welfare and assistance.
We have complete smoking bans in casino properties in Illinois, Colorado, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Florida, and Massachusetts is about to join that group. On the flip side; Pennsylvania, Atlantic City, plus many Tribal and Nevada casinos protect their customers by having restricted non-smoking sections on their gaming floors.
If America is really going to protect our citizens from the ills of smoking, it seems we should be following our experiment from prohibition in the 1920’s, and totally outlaw the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the US or specific states. But this action would add hundreds of thousands of employees to our unemployment lines, and dramatically reduce State taxes.
There is no question smokers add $ billions more to our national health care costs, but as an offset, we collect many $ billions in revenues from the disproportionate tax imposed individually on the purchase of cigarettes; not unlike the disproportionate tax on alcohol and all forms of gaming. But another fact that can’t be ignored, as we discuss the health care cost of smokers; is a smoker’s shortened life expectancy. This reduces eventual medicare and other health care expenses, for those whose lives are cut short from this unfortunate habit.
As for Macao, I expect the casinos themselves will suffer a further decline in win, taxes and employment, if smoking is not allowed in specific smoking rooms; where baccarat games are allowed. Non smoking employees can be protected, by having them work in other area of the casino hotels; where smoking is prohibited. Otherwise, I expect Macao will experience the same kind of results that occurred at the Greater Chicago casinos, in Illinois.