Is Smoking Ban A Corporate Strategy?
Despite bearing witness to the devastating commercial effects that the ban on smoking has had to the New York City restaurant and hospitality businesses (who are still suffering a 30-40% decline compared to pre-ban and have several lobbies actively trying to recind it), New Jersey has also passed into law a smoking ban which went into effect April 15.
When I think of the ridiculousness of it, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
But I know no one who works in the restaurant business in NJ is laughing. In fact, many workers are probably looking into other means of support, if they didn't already leave the business as soon as the ban was passed in January. The smart ones did.
I keep wondering. . . in a commercial sense, who benefits from this? And the only ones that come to mind are corporate restaurants. Oh, they don't benefit directly-- they'll suffer the same decline as the small, privately owned resaurants. But they can suffer for a while, wait it out. In fact, the way corporate restaurant management is designed, they will not suffer nearly as much as the little guy-- or their employees.
Because corporate resaurants only want young kids between 18-22 working for them to begin with. Anyone older than that needs more money and has too many responsibilities and often presents more of a liability than an asset.
I've seen how corporate restaurants operate. They do everything possible to discourage the career bartender, waiter or waitress from working there: they do everything from deliberately over staffing (because the customer comes first-- who cares if no one makes more than $25-50 a night?) to over working them with so much "side work" (the term used in restaurants for all the prep and clean up waiters and waitresses do) that they spend hours making nothing or risk reprisals, to simply not hiring them in the first place. Hey, the bosses don't care-- they only pay staff between $1.25 and $3.00 per hour. That's a great resource for cheap labor!
And I don't think it's any co-incidence that corporate restaurants would be able to wait (because the corporation normally expects to run some restaurants in the red and it's buffered by those in black) while the independent restaurants will quickly go out of business when they lose 30% of their revenues.
The problem is. . . well, I don't know about you, but I hate shopping at Walmart or Kmart because the only products they sell (and, thus, choices the consumer has) are mass produced by other corporations. Nothing unique, nothing independent, nothing original.
And I never go to corporate restaurants because the food is all frozen, shipped to each "store" (the corporate offices' term, probably because it's too hard for them to spell restaurant) sometimes as whole meals, pre-packaged, especially their "specials." Heck, I might as well buy a Swanson's Dinner (another corporation) and eat at home!
But the bigger issue here isn't really smoking and it never was. That's why all of this is ridiculous. The anti-smokers are being played for fools, used by both corporate America and the politicians. Because it isn't about health concerns or customer comfort and it never was.
It's all about money. I mean, if New Jersey REALLY wanted people to stop smoking they would ban the SALE of cigarettes. But they don't do that. Why not? If it's really such a health concern, if it really is so perilous? But they don't. . . instead, they increase the tax on cigarettes. Hmmm. How interesting. In fact, they've increased the tax so many times and to such an extent that cigarette sales are probably supporting half of the government funding.
Isn't that ironic? I mean, the long and the short of it is, medicare is funded by the sale of cigarettes. I find that hysterical. And meanwhile, Good ol' corporate America sits back and reaps all the profits. What I want to know is, when did Big Brother join the Moral Majority?
Or is he its leader?
When I think of the ridiculousness of it, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
But I know no one who works in the restaurant business in NJ is laughing. In fact, many workers are probably looking into other means of support, if they didn't already leave the business as soon as the ban was passed in January. The smart ones did.
I keep wondering. . . in a commercial sense, who benefits from this? And the only ones that come to mind are corporate restaurants. Oh, they don't benefit directly-- they'll suffer the same decline as the small, privately owned resaurants. But they can suffer for a while, wait it out. In fact, the way corporate restaurant management is designed, they will not suffer nearly as much as the little guy-- or their employees.
Because corporate resaurants only want young kids between 18-22 working for them to begin with. Anyone older than that needs more money and has too many responsibilities and often presents more of a liability than an asset.
I've seen how corporate restaurants operate. They do everything possible to discourage the career bartender, waiter or waitress from working there: they do everything from deliberately over staffing (because the customer comes first-- who cares if no one makes more than $25-50 a night?) to over working them with so much "side work" (the term used in restaurants for all the prep and clean up waiters and waitresses do) that they spend hours making nothing or risk reprisals, to simply not hiring them in the first place. Hey, the bosses don't care-- they only pay staff between $1.25 and $3.00 per hour. That's a great resource for cheap labor!
And I don't think it's any co-incidence that corporate restaurants would be able to wait (because the corporation normally expects to run some restaurants in the red and it's buffered by those in black) while the independent restaurants will quickly go out of business when they lose 30% of their revenues.
The problem is. . . well, I don't know about you, but I hate shopping at Walmart or Kmart because the only products they sell (and, thus, choices the consumer has) are mass produced by other corporations. Nothing unique, nothing independent, nothing original.
And I never go to corporate restaurants because the food is all frozen, shipped to each "store" (the corporate offices' term, probably because it's too hard for them to spell restaurant) sometimes as whole meals, pre-packaged, especially their "specials." Heck, I might as well buy a Swanson's Dinner (another corporation) and eat at home!
But the bigger issue here isn't really smoking and it never was. That's why all of this is ridiculous. The anti-smokers are being played for fools, used by both corporate America and the politicians. Because it isn't about health concerns or customer comfort and it never was.
It's all about money. I mean, if New Jersey REALLY wanted people to stop smoking they would ban the SALE of cigarettes. But they don't do that. Why not? If it's really such a health concern, if it really is so perilous? But they don't. . . instead, they increase the tax on cigarettes. Hmmm. How interesting. In fact, they've increased the tax so many times and to such an extent that cigarette sales are probably supporting half of the government funding.
Isn't that ironic? I mean, the long and the short of it is, medicare is funded by the sale of cigarettes. I find that hysterical. And meanwhile, Good ol' corporate America sits back and reaps all the profits. What I want to know is, when did Big Brother join the Moral Majority?
Or is he its leader?
posted by Marige | 5/05/2006 01:24:00 PM
