This is kind of hilarious and mind-bending. From The Atlantic online. I’d have liked to be a fly on the wall in the room where they came up with this. George Orwell probably would have enjoyed it, too.
I doubt a lot of breweries or fireworks manufacturers appreciate use of their product in their offices either.
I heard this story on NPR last night, and the girl they interviewed was touting this as a stupid PR stunt, and making fun of the company for being a “hypocrite”.
…or they are thinking like a company first and realizing that a majority of the population doesn’t smoke and doesn’t enjoy smoke around them so they are cutting their future employee potential in half and they are taking more steps for that.
According to news accounts, about 18% of the company’s employees smoke (close to the percentage in the overall adult population), so it was high time they bowed to the inevitable and restricted smoking areas.
Though I notice that “moist snuff” and “snus” (oral tobacco products, blech) as well as e-cigs are A-OK in the Reynolds’ offices. Does this include full-bore chewing tobacco habits? Are there company-approved spittoons?
Smith and Wesson is just death on employees using their products at the office; it’s a firing offense.
Actually, there are breweries that allow employees a beer or two after their shift.
I wonder if it may be due to lease agreements in their office spaces. I doubt that many landlords are willing to put up with smoking these days.
There’s another article floating around out there that discusses a major tobacco company’s new ads that are saying something like “Tobacco products will kill you.” and such. Observer speculation is that they’re gearing up to combat the e-cigarrette industry that is taking away their market with products they’re not (yet) selling, by trying to stigmatize the e-cigs and scare users back to consuming filtered smoke. :dubious:
–G!
All the big tobacco companies have already bought at least one ecig brand; some have bought more than one. They (big tobacco) do not promote the fact and do not link their popular cigarette brand names to their ecig brands.
The independent ecig companies are attempting to avoid being considered tobacco products and want them sold in independent shops and online. The big tobacco companies want ecigs to be considered tobacco products and to be sold only in retail locations where cigarettes are currently sold.
Big tobacco is not against ecigs – they are against thousands of little independent people being able to profit from them. They want to control the market. They are the ones funding and providing guidance and assistance to what appear to be local “grass roots” “think of the children” drives to declare ecigs to be tobacco products which can only be sold in places where they already have the market infrastructure in place.
One of the really ugly things big tobacco is attempting is to get the FDA to declare that only old style ecigs (those which were being produced seven years ago) can be sold. Those are the types they are selling. Those are the types that don’t work very well for quitting smoking. The technology is advancing very rapidly and modern, powerful ecigs make it very easy to quit smoking. Millions of people have replaced smoking with modern ecigs; that is why big tobacco only wants their antiquated devices available.
Are employees of marijuana dispensaries allowed to toke on the job?
I don’t think so (anti-smoking ordinances; can’t smoke indoors) but they do get an employee discount.
I think the snark is a bit outdated, since, IIRC, most tobacco companies have stopped insisting that their products aren’t the least addictive or harmful.
I’ll bet their insurance companies don’t like them having things on fire in the building either. Before smoking bans, a lot of trashcan fires got started by someone dumping an ashtray that had a cigarette not as “out” as it was supposed to be, and every year a few of them turned into fires that required a call to 911, and later, the insurance company. I know my renter’s insurance would almost double if I were a smoker, and right now it’s pretty damn cheap, but $26 x 2 = $52. Imagine that on the scale of what it costs to insure a huge office building.
ETA: I’ll bet they have the same cost differences for smoking vs. non-smoking employees on the health insurance.
It’s ironic, but perfectly logical.
Which goes to show you that irony isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Sorry; that’s a great observation. I’m one of those people who hates to see the word “irony” misused.
Are employees of Caterpillar allowed to drive heavy bulldozers through the office? I think not.
Are cable TV employees allowed to sit at their desks and watch movies On Demand all day?
How long can we keep this up?
Yes.
To the exclusion of anything else?
Why would their employer withhold their medicine?