Company Fires All Employees

[TheMadCap]

This public service announcement was brought to you by Phillip Morris, who urges everyone to stop smoking, even though they know only a few of you have the willpower to do it.

218537[/snapback]

 

 

I work for Philip Morris USA, and they invest lot of money coming up with "reduced exposure" products for those who choose to smoke.

 

Some of you have seen that TRUTH commercial where they go to the HQ of "a major tobacco company" in NYC (obviously PMUSA) and yell up to them questioning why they don't offer the reduced harm cigarette to the whole country instead of just NYS.

 

The reason is simple. People don't buy the safer cigarettes. I have tried it myself and it tastes like I would imagine hay to taste like if one smoked that.

 

Currently this problem has to do with the delivery system. What I mean is that the devices used in the cigarettes themselves to remove harmful constituents remove the flavor. It is unclear if the flavor of the burning cigarette actually comes from the toxic components.

 

There are some new type products under development right now that they are trying to implement with flavorings in the cigarettes to combat the flavor issue, but that is top secret to a peon like me.

 

Philip Morris leads the industry in funding youth prevention programs, and offers some manner of help for those wanting to quit smoking. I have not really investigated this matter, but it's on the web site if anyone cares to find out about it.

 

PMUSA also was instrumental in the passing of the Master's Settlement Agreement which limits the exposure of tobacco products in the media, which is why you don't see magazine adds, billboards, etc.

[Coach Tuesday]

I don't see it being any different than alcohol.  Bus drivers ain't allowed to toss a couple back, either.  But, you can't fire someone if they drink away from work - unless it impacts their job performance.

218639[/snapback]

 

Ok, does taking frequent smoke breaks, and having poor health otherwise (as a result of smoking) affect one's job performance? Could it?

[Alaska Darin]

Ok, does taking frequent smoke breaks, and having poor health otherwise (as a result of smoking) affect one's job performance?  Could it?

218643[/snapback]

Not anymore than obesity or "couch potato-itis". I was in the military with people who didn't smoke who couldn't walk a half a mile and with smokers who literally ran marathons. Most people are ridiculously unhealthy and one only has to go to the grocery store and look in the average shopping cart to understand why.

 

Companies don't help themselves in this regard, either.

[Tux of Borg]

Yes the government created this problem (and creates the problem of my girlfriend having to pay at least $280 in premiums per month for private health insurance, because she's forced by the government to subsidize old people),

218631[/snapback]

 

Don't forget to include the social security tax that we will never see.

[Fezmid]

I don't see it being any different than alcohol.  Bus drivers ain't allowed to toss a couple back, either.  But, you can't fire someone if they drink away from work - unless it impacts their job performance.

218639[/snapback]

 

This is completely different than the "alcohol for a bus driver" issue, or even the "no motorcycle riding in the offseason" argument. These people weren't fired because smoking impaired their job performance. They were fired because it *increased* insurance premiums for the employer. Yes, people who smoke have more health issues later in life, but it's not like "I started smoking yesterday and will die tomorrow."

CW

[Alaska Darin]

This is completely different than the "alcohol for a bus driver" issue, or even the "no motorcycle riding in the offseason" argument.  These people weren't fired because smoking impaired their job performance.  They were fired because it *increased* insurance premiums for the employer.  Yes, people who smoke have more health issues later in life, but it's not like "I started smoking yesterday and will die tomorrow."

CW

218651[/snapback]

No argument there.

[Fezmid]

Ok, does taking frequent smoke breaks, and having poor health otherwise (as a result of smoking) affect one's job performance?  Could it?

218643[/snapback]

 

Again, they weren't fired for job performance, they were fired for increased health insurance premiums.

 

And who here doesn't take breaks? Should people who drink coffee be fired, since they walk to the coffee pot to get refills (and often stop to talk to others on the way?)? It's ridiculous.

 

CW

[Toledo Bill]

Not anymore than obesity or "couch potato-itis".  I was in the military with people who didn't smoke who couldn't walk a half a mile and with smokers who literally ran marathons.  Most people are ridiculously unhealthy and one only has to go to the grocery store and look in the average shopping cart to understand why.

 

Companies don't help themselves in this regard, either.

218648[/snapback]

 

You are not kidding about companies. The company I work for has gone to great lengths to focus on health and wellness issues. But every Friday the donuts/cakes/brownies, etc. roll in and it is the same overweight people that spend half the day by the food. We pay partial gym memberships, promote tests employees can take to reduce health risks and they are basically unused.

 

Occassional good stories though. Through the wellness testing an employee with diabetes and one with extremely high blood pressure were uncovered. They made lifestyle changes and are doing fine.

[BB27]

Many city, county, and state law enforcement and fire services do not allow personell to smoke (on or off duty). It comes down to a condition of employment, if you want to smoke, that is fine, you just can't work there.

 

I don't see a problem with it.

[Fan in San Diego]

firing employees who smoke is absurd.  the employers can govern whatever they want during business hours with regards to smoke breaks and smoking areas.  but they have no right to fire anyone over what they choose to do when they're not on the clock

 

and by their reasoning that its for high health care costs, they should fire anyone who eats fast food or drinks coffee

218552[/snapback]

 

Exactly, whats next. You dont take vitamins? This is a slippery slope. I hope somebody sues them for millions and billions.

[Snorom]

This is ludicrous, and just as invasive as drug testing. A person should only be evaluated by his/her performance on the job. If someone is habitually late, constantly slacking then and only then should someone be terminated.

 

What aperson does outside of the job environment should remain part of a person private life.

 

Make no mistake about this, alcohol consumption will be next. They will begin testing people to see if they used alcohol over the weekend. Do you realize how much money is lost to corporate america because of Monday hangovers?

 

How about employees who do like to eat at fast food restaurants a few times a week and carry an extra 50lbs.

 

PERSONALLY I THINK CORPORATE AMERICA NEEDS TO STAY THE !@#$ OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES.

 

I wonder how many millions these corporate big wigs rake in. They seem more then willing to screw the little man to ensure there way of life. Hell for many of us a smoke, toke, drink or a chicken wing represents one of our few affordable pleasures.

[Coach Tuesday]

PERSONALLY I THINK CORPORATE AMERICA NEEDS TO STAY THE !@#$ OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES.

218805[/snapback]

 

THEN DON'T GO WORK FOR CORPORATE AMERICA. They don't owe you anything. They don't owe you a livelihood. They can hire and fire you at will, unless your employment contract says otherwise, whereby you'd have a legal cause of action for something like this. THIS ISN'T A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.

[Coach Tuesday]

This is completely different than the "alcohol for a bus driver" issue, or even the "no motorcycle riding in the offseason" argument.  These people weren't fired because smoking impaired their job performance.  They were fired because it *increased* insurance premiums for the employer.  Yes, people who smoke have more health issues later in life, but it's not like "I started smoking yesterday and will die tomorrow."

CW

218651[/snapback]

 

Then you should take issue not with the companies, but with whatever law it is that prevents them simply from slashing the health insurance of these individuals. Why shouldn't these companies be entitled to fire those who force them to spend more on premiums? Do you people realize that these extra costs are imposed on consumers? Hey smokers, I've got a novel idea! Why don't you quit imposing social and medical costs on other people? How about you pay for your own vices and stop expecting others to subsidize your costs later in life? And how about you stop imposing the costs of second-hand smoke-related healthcare on others?

[sfladave]

Then you should take issue not with the companies, but with whatever law it is that prevents them simply from slashing the health insurance of these individuals.  Why shouldn't these companies be entitled to fire those who force them to spend more on premiums?  Do you people realize that these extra costs are imposed on consumers?  Hey smokers, I've got a novel idea!  Why don't you quit imposing social and medical costs on other people?  How about you pay for your own vices and stop expecting others to subsidize your costs later in life?  And how about you stop imposing the costs of second-hand smoke-related healthcare on others?

218824[/snapback]

 

I think you're missing the larger picture here Coach. What about the additional costs imposed on us by overweight individuals who suffer from heart disease and other ailments from being overweight? I'd be willing to bet there are more overweight people in the US than there are smokers. What about the invasion of our personal lives outside of work?

[Coach Tuesday]

I think you're missing the larger picture here Coach. What about the additional costs imposed on us by overweight individuals who suffer from heart disease and other ailments from being overweight? I'd be willing to bet there are more overweight people in the US than there are smokers. What about the invasion of our personal lives outside of work?

218836[/snapback]

 

Was there a pun intended by "larger picture"? Actually, I'm quite sure companies would fire obese people for the same reason if they weren't so afraid of getting sued. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, other than not working for these companies, you should try to push negative publicity upon them (thru the media, boycotts, etc.). I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with anyone suggesting that the government should put a stop to the choices made by private actors.

 

Also, those "costs" you're talking about are government-imposed, and I DO have a problem with them - as you can see, I take issue with the healthcare laws and they way in which they force healthy individuals to subsidize unhealthy individuals (including obese people).

[sfladave]

Was there a pun intended by "larger picture"?  Actually, I'm quite sure companies would fire obese people for the same reason if they weren't so afraid of getting sued.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, other than not working for these companies, you should try to push negative publicity upon them (thru the media, boycotts, etc.).  I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with anyone suggesting that the government should put a stop to the choices made by private actors.

 

Also, those "costs" you're talking about are government-imposed, and I DO have a problem with them - as you can see, I take issue with the healthcare laws and they way in which they force healthy individuals to subsidize unhealthy individuals (including obese people).

218839[/snapback]

 

No pun intended.

 

Well I have to agree that less government is better government. BUT, I feel that this is leading down the path of personal liberties being violated and that scares me. This will be decided in the courts which is fine with me. I don't want any laws governing this, but a precedent set by the courts would be appropriate.

[CajunBillsBacker]

I don't disagree with this. While I can tolerate a smoker smoking in an open space, my biggest pet peeve when it comes to smokers is those who roll down their window on their car and pluck their cigarette butts out on the streets. As if the world is one big ash tray!

[jarthur31]

firing employees who smoke is absurd.  the employers can govern whatever they want during business hours with regards to smoke breaks and smoking areas.  but they have no right to fire anyone over what they choose to do when they're not on the clock

 

and by their reasoning that its for high health care costs, they should fire anyone who eats fast food or drinks coffee

218552[/snapback]

 

Ditto. Haven't companies already shied away from overweight folks who also cost the company on health as well?

 

It won't stop with the smoking. However, I too, would consider such a move if I owned a company like that.

[Snorom]

THEN DON'T GO WORK FOR CORPORATE AMERICA.  They don't owe you anything.  They don't owe you a livelihood.  They can hire and fire you at will, unless your employment contract says otherwise, whereby you'd have a legal cause of action for something like this.  THIS ISN'T A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.

218820[/snapback]

 

OK, I'll rephrase it. Employers in general. Big companies and small companies are all doing this kind of thing.

 

AND THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE THE !@#$ING RIGHT TO TELL US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES OUTSIDE OF THE WORK ENVIROMENT NO MATTER WHAT THE COST !!!!!!!!

 

What does "this isn't a socialist coountry " have to do with this. We live in a capitalistic world. We need to make a living, pay bills, have health care, and a retirement. It is our right as Americans to be able to pursue work, and live our lives free of our employers idealogies of who and what we should be outside of the workplace, and outside of company time. If I goto my job and work hard then who the hell are they to force me to piss in a cup and then tell me I'm not a worthy employee. We are giving companies too much control.

 

I would gladly not work for any of these companies, but unfortunately there the only gig in town. There are very limited, or no opportunites that do not pursue some sort control on thier employees and there outside lifestyle.

 

I am sick and tired of having my life controlled by an entity that has no business involving itself in what I do outside of work

 

 

Money, Profits and Costs should not be the guage upon how freedom is determnined Coach, and that is what is wrong with the Country.

 

And why your bitching about health costs maybe you should remember that the health industry still shows a few billion dollars in profit every year, and that prescription drugs are more expensive in the country they are developed in, and all the other BS that goes on. SO take your head out of your ass and stop subscribing to corporate control of our freedoms.

 

Imperialism isn't much of an improvement over socialism.

[lawnboy1977]

*My bad, I should have put an OT on this.

 

The firm wants to save some dough on health care.

 

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

 

I have long thought that non-smokers were better employees -- yes, of course, with many exceptions.

 

Think about this -- those who smoke need extra "smoke breaks," which obviously cuts down on the time they are actually working. If they don't get the breaks, they get “nic fits” and are short-fused with fellow employees and customers.

 

Hey, I smoked for about five years. I am only speaking from first hand experience and observations. I am sure there are many of you out there who smoke and are great employees, but if I owned my own company, I would do what I could to keep smokers off my payroll.

 

*My bad, I should have put an OT on this.

218531[/snapback]

Dude, sorry but that's a bunch of bull sh--!! I don't smoke, I havent smoked in about 4 years, and I hate cigarettes, hate em. But you can honestly not say that non-smokers are more productive employees than smokers. There's absolutley no evidence to support that statement. I have worked in many offices over the years and non-smokers take just as many breaks as smokers do. Most smokers will take a smoek break every 1 to 2 hours if you think about it, which isnt that bad. Firing somone because they smoke is unjust and quite frankly it's a form of discrimination. If something like that happened to me, I'd sue, and I'm sure those employees will sue, for wrongful termination.