Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />those employed fewer than 5 employees.46 <br />Based on these data, the average number of <br />employees ‡‡ in verified e-cigarette retailer <br />stores was 378 and in unverified e-cigarette <br />retailer stores was 715. Under scenarios in <br />which 100%, 50%, and 25% of these businesses <br />close due to a ban or restriction, approximately <br />1,093, 547, and 274 employees would face the <br />prospect of job separation, respectively. By way <br />of comparison, Maryland’s employment in the <br />retail sector was approximately 270,000 workers <br />in 2018.47 <br /> <br />An important consideration is that a ban or <br />restriction on flavored tobacco products is not a <br />ban on all electronic cigarettes. Assuming <br />existing specialized retailers modify their <br />product offerings to drop flavored products and <br />add other products, there may be little to no <br />impact on the number of these businesses and <br />the people they employ. A related concern in <br />the event of job separation in any specialized <br />sub-industry is the ease with which workers are <br />absorbed into other jobs. Labor economists rely <br />on 1) an understanding of job requirements and <br />2) the availability of similar jobs to understand <br />the ease with which one group of workers might <br />find alternative livelihood opportunities in the <br />event of an industry-specific change. With <br />respect to job requirements, frontline retail jobs <br />tend to be relatively low in the intensity of <br />human capital requirements for training and <br />retraining—by some estimates 72% of frontline <br />retail workers receive less than 20 hours of <br />training.48 Employment in most categories of <br />retail jobs in the state of Maryland are predicted <br />to grow at over 1.5% between 2018 and 2020.49 <br />Within the context of continued declines in <br />overall unemployment in the state, these point <br />to both the availability of comparable jobs and <br />relative ease with which the small group of <br />potentially displaced retail workers might be <br /> <br />‡‡ ReferenceUSA data categorizes establishments by employee size. The mid-points of these categories (1-4, 5-9 and 10-19) <br />were used to estimate the average number of employees. Upper bounds for the number of employees in verified and <br />unverified stores is 576, and 1141 respectively.46 <br /> <br />absorbed in those comparable jobs and <br />sectors.50,51 <br /> <br />COMPLIANCE <br />Compliance studies from several of the early <br />adopters can serve as an early barometer for a <br />policy’s ability to succeed. Here we explore <br />findings and lessons learned from Boston, <br />Massachusetts, other Massachusetts <br />communities, St. Paul/Minneapolis, Minnesota, <br />and Chicago, Illinois. <br />In 2016, the city of Boston, Massachusetts <br />implemented a policy restricting the sale of <br />flavored tobacco products, including cigars, <br />smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes, to adult- <br />only retailers. A Guidance List was provided to <br />retailers in order to better delineate what is a <br />flavored versus non-flavored product, and the <br />list is periodically updated to reflect additional <br />products, with adequate time given to retailers <br />to comply with the updates to the list. A pre- <br />/post- study design was used to evaluate retailer <br />compliance with this law. Baseline data <br />collected prior to implementation of the policy <br />indicate 89% of the retailers surveyed were <br />selling flavored products (average of 19.5 unique <br />flavored tobacco products were available for <br />sale). At the follow-up stage, 8-months after the <br />policy went into effect, 14% of the retailers were <br />selling flavored tobacco products (average of 0.4 <br />unique flavored tobacco products were available <br />for sale). Approximately 86% and 62% of <br />retailers reported that educational visits and the <br />Guidance List were the most helpful in achieving <br />compliance, respectively. In total, the <br />researchers found that 51 retailers were not <br />compliant after the policy effective date; 73% of <br />these did not know a product was in violation of <br />the policy. When the non-compliant retailers <br />were asked about the challenges, 36% indicated