Boss fires staff for not smoking!

[bookworm_020]

I wonder how the law deals with this, an unfair dismissal???:hmm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/boss-fires-staff-for-not-smoking/2008/01/10/1199554775007.html

[Ducimus]

Didn't i just see this on Fark.com? :rotfl:

[Skybird]

While he may can get away with hiring smokers only (not sure what the new fantastic EU-anti-discrimination-law has to say on it), I am sure that he will lose any possible aprés-ski at court for having fired non-smokers or not smoking. Not to be smoking is no legal reason to fire that person. and the company does not stand above the law, but has to obey it. the law says some things about where smoking is banned, and that there must be proetction of non-smokers from smokers, and so the company has to obey, period. It is not allowed to follow or ignore laws at it'S own will.

If the employees will have an easy life when returning, is somethign different. If I were them I would sue the company and try to get as much out of them as possible, and make it as painful for them as possible.

If I would have no legal protection insurrance that jumps in for the costs, than I would be screwed, of course.

[kiwi_2005]

hehe that must be a first. 'Power to the smokers'

[SUBMAN1]

He does have what could be termed an almost valid excuse, no? If they were being disruptive about his smoking, he may actually win this one.

-S

[Skybird]

He does have what could be termed an almost valid excuse, no? If they were being disruptive about his smoking, he may actually win this one.

-S
No, not by german laws, as far as i am aware of them.

[Reaves]

What ever happened to "I'm the boss, if you don't like it find another job?"


If my boss was an ass monkey I certainly wouldn't be sticking around.

[Skybird]

What ever happened to "I'm the boss, if you don't like it find another job?"

It's not about subjective views - it's about valid laws.

If my boss was an ass monkey I certainly wouldn't be sticking around.
Plenty of available jobs in your place then, and no wife and kids of your own, i assume.

[STEED]

What next? :hmm:

[Penelope_Grey]

This is actually sort of amusing in a way. The boot on the other foot no? Looking at it from the flip side, if a smoker refused to conform to non-smoking enviroment... their arse would be so fired... all that has happened here is the reverse.

The way I see it is... they took a job in a workplace where smoking was permitted freely, legally too, when they don't smoke themselves. Then, they expect changes to suit them.

From where I sit, the boss seems to be within his boundaries. Just about.

[Skybird]

Pen, you oversee the legal side here. Since 1st January, smoking is banned in many public places, official buildings, railway stations, hospitals, bars and restaurant. And in past years, according laws were implemented that cover the workplace as well. The non-smokers in that company simply had laws on their side that said that they must be given the opportuity to work in a smoke-free working place, floor, room, whatever.

You also ignore the originator prnciple (again! ;) :D ) here. It's not that non.smokers actively cause an additonal effect at set it ffree to the environemnt that harms smokers. It is that smokers harm non smokers by setting additonal agents free into the living envrionment. If your neighbour behaves too loud, the recipe is not that you start to behave loud yourself to "oversond" him, but that he has to turn more silent. Eventually you can even sue him at court to fall in line with that reasonable demand. It is not different with smoking.

[Ramius]

Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge.

http://boursomac.com/webengine/images/smiley/clap.gif

[STEED]

Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge.




Watch out Gordon Brown. :shifty:

[Penelope_Grey]

Pen, you oversee the legal side here. Since 1st January, smoking is banned in many public places, official buildings, railway stations, hospitals, bars and restaurant. And in past years, according laws were implemented that cover the workplace as well. The non-smokers in that company simply had laws on their side that said that they must be given the opportuity to work in a smoke-free working place, floor, room, whatever.

LOL well ok yes, for health reasons certainly they should not be forced into a smokey environment, I'll grant you that.... But knowing full well their boss was permitting his employees to smoke, and still working there knowing it... they may have had the law on their side... but heck, I think the boss has a point they would have caused him unnecessary grief. The decent thing all round would be for them to have not gone there in the first place rather than go there and then say "change it or we'll get the law on you." That's just my opinion.

You also ignore the originator prnciple (again! ;) :D ) here. It's not that non.smokers actively cause an additonal effect at set it ffree to the environemnt that harms smokers. It is that smokers harm non smokers by setting additonal agents free into the living envrionment. If your neighbour behaves too loud, the recipe is not that you start to behave loud yourself to "oversond" him, but that he has to turn more silent. Eventually you can even sue him at court to fall in line with that reasonable demand. It is not different with smoking.

Originator? Skybird, please use plain simple English... lol... English is not my first language either you know.

Well... Ive had my fun with smoking and thats it, out of my life now, but... truth is, you know... Im not going to rag on smokers and be a hypocrite to them. I can see clearly both sides of the argument.

My point is, if they knew in that workplace smoking was the norm... why go there in the first place just to cause waves later on?

Personally... I hope the boss wins this one. Because while there is blame on both sides, and I think the boss was right to dismiss them in that environment smokers were the majority therefore... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few yah?

[kiwi_2005]

My point is, if they knew in that workplace smoking was the norm... why go there in the first place just to cause waves later on?



Actually thats a good point, they handle it probably for years then the no smoking law comes to effect and they start bleating to the boss they want a no smoking workplace. Yeah if they never liked it before why didn't they just look for work somewhere else. The Boss did the right thing he spotted out stirrers a mile away.

[Skybird]

LOL well ok yes, for health reasons certainly they should not be forced into a smokey environment, I'll grant you that.... But knowing full well their boss was permitting his employees to smoke, and still working there knowing it... they may have had the law on their side... but heck, I think the boss has a point they would have caused him unnecessary grief. The decent thing all round would be for them to have not gone there in the first place rather than go there and then say "change it or we'll get the law on you." That's just my opinion.
Note that we have had another wave of new anti-smoke laws just with beginning of this year. And not before last year, I think, my own employer was forced to define a clear smoker zone, outsid of which now there is smoking prohibition in the whole house. Also, since the latest bans on 1st January, some people have taken it to ridiculoius heights to protest against it and make it appear as a defense of civil rights, or something like that. You usually do not know how much peoppe smoke when gettinga new job - most people are happy to just get a job anyway, and now they know that they can legally demand to be protected from smokers.

I did not find the story in german media, although it took place in Düsseldorf.

Originator? Skybird, please use plain simple English... lol... English is not my first language either you know.

That is how my dictionary translates it: Verursacherprinzip: originator principle. It is a legal term and means someone who is causing something negative is responsible for for removal of what causes the negative, or will be held responsible for the consequences. Regarding environmental pollution, they also use the term "polluter-pays-principle".

Well... Ive had my fun with smoking and thats it, out of my life now, but... truth is, you know... Im not going to rag on smokers and be a hypocrite to them. I can see clearly both sides of the argument.

Can't see that hypocricy has somethign to do with it. again, it is a plain case of orginator principle for me. If non.smokers must choose to reject options in their life because others cause netauive effects they do not wish toi give up, the latter are the ones to blame. When they limit the freedoms of others, or even do harm of any kind by their living habits, they have to chnage it in a way that this does not happen. If you would raise small children, you also would not tolerate junkeys fixing in your houses stairwell and throwing around dirty needles, and your kids needing to make their way through them and their dangerous rubbish when wanting to play or leaving for school. I do not care if peoppe smoke - as long as I must not give iup options they claim for themnsleves while still smoking, and must not take note of their habit, and must not pay for their ntreatment. After all, smokers are junkeys who volunteerd to get addicts. so they have to pay for all the costs they cause all by themselves. this is justice as best as it could get. Better don't assume I would have in any way changed my mind since our last debate... hm, no, let's say since our last collision. :lol:

My point is, if they knew in that workplace smoking was the norm... why go there in the first place just to cause waves later on?

maybe you need a job, and pick thta one knowing that you are protected by the laws? We do not know the details, do we.

Personally... I hope the boss wins this one. Because while there is blame on both sides
Is it so? This is no case of fair sharing the burden 50:50. The employer broke valid laws, as I see it, and I strongly assume that he will not only lose if they have a law case over it, but that he also will have the unions at his throat.

, and I think the boss was right to dismiss them in that environment smokers were the majority therefore... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few yah?
Thank God you are no lawyer, your would die by starvation. No, specific laws usually do not depend on few versus many, but make a principle statement that is indepedant from such arbitrary considerations. It is saying that every employer is responsible for creating working environments that protect the non-smokers from smokers (polluter pays principle). How big both groups are in comparison is totally unimportant. You also do not say that cars at a red traffic light nevertheless may drive on, if they are seven cars or more in their line, and no cars from the side street coming and having the lights on green. You are not jumpng a red traffic light, no matter the traffic siotuation. You don't ignore non-smoker protection laws when being an employer. Nothing else, just this - that simple it is. And I think it is good that way. Else it would not make any sense at all to have a law code at all - if it get's arbitrarily implemented or ignored at free will or even by the law of the jungle.

Must we really repeat this showdown on main street? When it was over last time you did not speak to me for weeks and months. :D But I provoked you into proving you can be a non-smoker, and that is good for you, so you owe me one! ;) :-j

[Reaves]

What ever happened to "I'm the boss, if you don't like it find another job?"
It's not about subjective views - it's about valid laws.

If my boss was an ass monkey I certainly wouldn't be sticking around. Plenty of available jobs in your place then, and no wife and kids of your own, i assume.


Pretty much.

I also have house mates so the bills aren't a worry for me. My paycheck isn't exactly large though, can we say minimum wage?

[Skybird]

You can afford to change your job then. Congratulations, you are privileged then. but you should not need to chnage your job in order to avoid smokers - you have the law on your side protecting you against polluters. Over here, in many regions here, people cannot afford to just give up a job, with no other around. In the east it goes as high as to 30-35% unemployment in some places and depressing financial debts of families.

[Penelope_Grey]

Must we really repeat this showdown on main street? When it was over last time you did not speak to me for weeks and months. :D But I provoked you into proving you can be a non-smoker, and that is good for you, so you owe me one! ;) :-j

I get fads of coming in and out of the snake pit (General Topics)... I like to come in and taunt the cobras from time to time.:up: Not the same withou tthe Queen Cobra these days is it?

I didnt speak to you before cause I thought you were very insulting and you called me a little girl and stuff... Im normally a very non-violent person but if you were saying what you typed here to my face... You'd have the dubious honour of being the very first person I punched in the mouth. :arrgh!:

I knew I could stop smoking and stick to it anyway.:smug: But Im still on the Boss' side.:up:

[Skybird]

You'd have the dubious honour of being the very first person I punched in the mouth. :arrgh!:

Hmpf! Youh mean I fuden't haf fad dat? :88)

[AVGWarhawk]

This is actually sort of amusing in a way. The boot on the other foot no? Looking at it from the flip side, if a smoker refused to conform to non-smoking enviroment... their arse would be so fired... all that has happened here is the reverse.

The way I see it is... they took a job in a workplace where smoking was permitted freely, legally too, when they don't smoke themselves. Then, they expect changes to suit them.

From where I sit, the boss seems to be within his boundaries. Just about.

Penelope is dead on here. What, the interview for the job was held at the park? I'm sure not, it was held in the office were they would be working and I'm sure the office smelled like an ashtray. The would be employee should have asked about smoking, office attire, etc. This is what interviews are for. I see no reason why the employer should not have dropped kicked them like he did.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I reckon smoking should be treated the same as getting caught drinking on the job. I know I wouldnt want to work with a chimney, just as I wouldnt want to work with a drunken lout.

No offense to smokers, but I dont understand what right you had in the first place to make me have to put up with the blankets of smoke in pubs and public areas. Everyone has habits (and dont tell me smoking isnt one), I just find it a bit silly when people get all up in arms, forgetting the fact that puffing a cigarette can be closely compared to enjoying a nice pint. Both have harmful environmental effects, but drinking is tightly controlled, as should smoking be.


Did any of that make any sense?:rotfl:

[Penelope_Grey]

Drinking tightly controlled is a matter of opinion KP.... A drunk is a lot more dangerous in a short space of time than a smoker is.

Hey at least it takes passive smoking years to kill you... a drunk can kill you in a flash.

[AVGWarhawk]

KP, smoking and pubs have long been associated as far back as smoking and pubs have been around. It was the place to do it. That tradition or type of socializing has held it's ground to this day, although it is losing ground!

Sorry to say that these two who got the boot interviewed in the office and if all who were presently employed at the time smoke in this enclosed room the place smells like an ashtray. I'm sure they smelled it. It has a unmistakable odor. It clings to the smokers clothing and hair. It gets into the walls and carpet. It leaves a dark film on all surfaces where the tobacco is burned. Did they really think it would all go away if they took the job?

As far as drinking, I suspect (no statistics as yet) that alcohol related deaths by vehicle probably outnumber any second hand smoke deaths. No offense to you drunking idiots behind the wheel but what right do you have to endanger others on the road either driving or just attempting to cross the street? It goes both ways KP.

Drinking is not tightly controlled. Never has been. Anyone can go get blotto all day every day if they want. Good Lord man, they have drive through liquor stores. It is like McDonalds. Give me a #1 with cheese and six pack. Now, that does not promote drinking and driving does it?


I find it amazing when non-smokers pick up the flag and run with it concerning pubs and smoking. If it offensive, find a pub that does not allow smoking or just do not attend. Everyone should suspect smoking will occur in the pubs. When I find any place offensive, I do not go there.

[Skybird]

I wonder when it will sink into people's minds in this thread that nowheree it was said they took the job recently and then demanded smoking to stop, but that it is more likely that they just took opportunity of laws that were not implement until most recently. Our smoking laws came in steps, over recent years. Before these new laws, smoking was allowed almost everywhere, in all kinds of offices, and a non-smoker stood no chance to protest against this. So realistically, non-smokers had no realistic chance to find a job in their profession without needing to accept smokers. It's just that in the course of just the last two years the laws have been changed so that smoking no longer necessarily must be accepted, and employers have a binding obligation to make smoke-free working places available. they do not stand above the law, and this employer kicking out the non-smokers because they reminded him of the new legal situation , and probably repeatedly i assume, is violating these laws.

Just on radio I heared the story being covered yesterday morning, i did not find it in the newspapers I use to scan daily. And on radio it was said that meanwhile the case has gone to the courts in Düsseldorf. And I am sure that the employer needs to accepot the two people he fired back into work. He is no exception from the rule and need to obey laws like everybody else, period.

In bars and restaurants it will also become much harsher after the introductory times that vary between 3 and 6 months in various federal states, is over, becasue runners of restaiurants hardly can afford penalties of up to 50 thousand Euros if they do not obey the new laws.

I find it amazing when non-smokers pick up the flag and run with it concerning pubs and smoking. If it offensive, find a pub that does not allow smoking or just do not attend. Everyone should suspect smoking will occur in the pubs. When I find any place offensive, I do not go there.

Again, originator principle, "polluter pays". From ireland and Italy there were reports that while some smokers left, even more non-smokers came in that usually would not have done so. It cannot be that somebody causing a troubole is demanding others to stay away from the freedom he enjoys himself while smokijng. You smoke, so you are responsible for not pestering others by your habits. If non-smokers around do not care, fine, you are lucky. If they are irritated by your smoking, it is not them but you who has to leave, or not to smoke. It would be the same if you become lud, misbehave, vomit on the table, or turn on a ghetto blaster - you are the one causing the mess, so you are responsible for ending the mess.

[Tchocky]

Again, originator principle, "polluter pays". From ireland and Italy there were reports that while some smokers left, even more non-smokers came in that usually would not have done so. Actually, very few people left pubs completely, at least here, I don't know about Italy. Pubs have been very good here in accommodating smokers, with beer gardens and such. Quite a few of my friends smoke, and I find myself spending some nights almost entirely in the smoking section, the only downside is, having quit, temptation :).
The argument about smokers leaving is rather indirect, seeing as most of these bans have been concerned wiith the effect on staff.

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
I find it amazing when non-smokers pick up the flag and run with it concerning pubs and smoking. If it offensive, find a pub that does not allow smoking or just do not attend. Everyone should suspect smoking will occur in the pubs. When I find any place offensive, I do not go there.


Again, originator principle, "polluter pays". From ireland and Italy there were reports that while some smokers left, even more non-smokers came in that usually would not have done so. It cannot be that somebody causing a troubole is demanding others to stay away from the freedom he enjoys himself while smokijng. You smoke, so you are responsible for not pestering others by your habits. If non-smokers around do not care, fine, you are lucky. If they are irritated by your smoking, it is not them but you who has to leave, or not to smoke. It would be the same if you become lud, misbehave, vomit on the table, or turn on a ghetto blaster - you are the one causing the mess, so you are responsible for ending the mess.


You have missed the point Skybird. Pubs were the place to go to drink, smoke and socialize. It has been this way since pubs were first started. If I'm not mistake, women were not allowed in the bars either. The tradition (if we can call it that) has gone on until this day. Others are asking that a long standing idea of a pub which traditionally has been the place for smoking and drinking needs to change. The worlds is attempting to change a long standing behavior. Not everyone is going to lay down the Bic lighter and pack of Marlboros. If I hit a pub that has lud, misbehaving, vomit on the table or turning on music I do not care for, it is time for me to leave. Normally the behavior just described is not what I call normal pub atmosphere. Therefore, I do not attend them. Smoking is a normal pub atmosphere. But in the end, it does not matter. Smokers will quit and less taxes will be collected on sales of tobacco. The non-smokers who started the rally cry can start paying what is lacking from cigarette sales. It is a fine line how the government taxes people on their vice and necessities.....gas, alcohol and tobacco.

[Reaves]

If I hit a pub that has lud, misbehaving, vomit on the table or turning on music I do not care for, it is time for me to leave.


Quoted for truth.

Unfortunately it's the time for the PC Nanny-State. If I owned and operated a bar, I should be able to smoke in it if I want. If my employees and customers don't like it, the government made me put a big glowing exit sign over the already obvious door to leave.

[AVGWarhawk]

If I hit a pub that has lud, misbehaving, vomit on the table or turning on music I do not care for, it is time for me to leave.


Quoted for truth.

Unfortunately it's the time for the PC Nanny-State. If I owned and operated a bar, I should be able to smoke in it if I want. If my employees and customers don't like it, the government made me put a big glowing exit sign over the already obvious door to leave.


This is how I feel about it myself. BTW, no trans-fat cooking for you either....another new one for the nanny-state.

[Reaves]

This is how I feel about it myself. BTW, no trans-fat cooking for you either....another new one for the nanny-state.

I'm actually a vegetarian now because my neighbour became one and a new law forces us not to burn meat because it's offensive for vegetarians to smell the cooking of animal products.

[bookworm_020]

This is how I feel about it myself. BTW, no trans-fat cooking for you either....another new one for the nanny-state.
I'm actually a vegetarian now because my neighbour became one and a new law forces us not to burn meat because it's offensive for vegetarians to smell the cooking of animal products.

Don't say that infront of my sister!:huh: How would my brother-in-law cope if he could only cook veggies on his BBQ!:damn: My wife loves her meat, so when we get the new place, bring on the BBQ!!!:sunny:

[August]

This is how I feel about it myself. BTW, no trans-fat cooking for you either....another new one for the nanny-state.
I'm actually a vegetarian now because my neighbour became one and a new law forces us not to burn meat because it's offensive for vegetarians to smell the cooking of animal products.

C'mon, surely you exaggerate right?

[Reaves]

This is how I feel about it myself. BTW, no trans-fat cooking for you either....another new one for the nanny-state.
I'm actually a vegetarian now because my neighbour became one and a new law forces us not to burn meat because it's offensive for vegetarians to smell the cooking of animal products.
C'mon, surely you exaggerate right?

A mass exaggeration!

I'd quit smokes if they made me but i'd never stop eating steak and ribs. It's an example that describes how I feel on the matter. People don't take responsibility for their own lives anymore, instead we blame it on some organisation and sue them. This is probably the main push to stop smoking inside... It's called Public Liability and insurance agencies don't like it.

-secures tin foil hat.

[STEED]

PLEASE READ THIS................... :yep:

German newspaper says hoaxed by pro-smoking crusader

BERLIN (Reuters) - A Hamburg newspaper that reported last week on a computer (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/computer.html) company manager who said he fired three non-smokers because they had threatened disruptions after asking for a smoke-free environment (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/environment.html) said on Monday the story was a hoax.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080114/tod-uk-germany-odd-hoax-1a5e080_1.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080114/tod-uk-germany-odd-hoax-1a5e080_1.html)

[Skybird]

PLEASE READ THIS................... :yep:

German newspaper says hoaxed by pro-smoking crusader

BERLIN (Reuters) - A Hamburg newspaper that reported last week on a computer (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/computer.html) company manager who said he fired three non-smokers because they had threatened disruptions after asking for a smoke-free environment (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/environment.html) said on Monday the story was a hoax.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080114/tod-uk-germany-odd-hoax-1a5e080_1.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080114/tod-uk-germany-odd-hoax-1a5e080_1.html)


OMFG! :rotfl: now at least this explains why nobody in Germany seem to have printed the story. Just one radio program fell for it (counting only the sources I regularly check, of course).

OK, next round of drinks goes on me.;)

[SteminDemon13]

As far as Bars and resturants go, it is a shame that everyone and their mother is shouting freedom and democracy around the world, but the business owner who pays all kinds of bills, taxes, insurance etc. can not have his "Freedom Of Choice" weather or not his establishment will permit smoking, or be a smoke free one.

It isn't that difficult to decide....well gee, I don't smoke, but this joint allows smoking.....I will just go to another place instead. There is no need for a law or ban, there is a need for common sense. Damn Shame:nope: !

[kiwi_2005]

As far as Bars and resturants go, it is a shame that everyone and their mother is shouting freedom and democracy around the world, but the business owner who pays all kinds of bills, taxes, insurance etc. can not have his "Freedom Of Choice" weather or not his establishment will permit smoking, or be a smoke free one.

It isn't that difficult to decide....well gee, I don't smoke, but this joint allows smoking.....I will just go to another place instead. There is no need for a law or ban, there is a need for common sense. Damn Shame:nope: !
To early for Germany yet but they the bussiness will find ways around it, like when NZ went smoke free in pubs/clubs, alot of pub owners out in the whoops (middle of nowhere) still allowed publicans to smoke in there pubs - non smokers didn't mind. They didn't mind before so why should they now. One guy about 6months after the law came in, lost his bussiness as all his customers smoked. They ended up drinking at home instead. The right way about it is you build a smokers bar outside which most do now.

[Skybird]

German:
http://www.welt.de/politik/article1554612/Wirt_gruendet_Kirche_fuer_Zigarettenliebhaber.html

It says that a bar owner in Schleswig holstein has founded a new religious community that practices smoking as a ritual like "inscence for Catholics". He wants to turn his bar into a church as well. He wants to give "church asylum" to smokers. the founding protocol has been sent to the federal state's government in Kiel. The church should be an alterntaive for people who have problöems with the stiff poractcicing asnd kneeling in other religions, instead smking and talk at beer and cigarettes are offered.

It is highly questionable that the request to be recognised as a corporate body of public law (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts) will be successful. If it fails, the bar owner wants to call the European court for human rights.


:dead:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

German:
http://www.welt.de/politik/article1554612/Wirt_gruendet_Kirche_fuer_Zigarettenliebhaber.html

It says that a bar owner in Schleswig holstein has founded a new religious community that practices smoking as a ritual like "inscence for Catholics". He wants to turn his bar into a church as well. He wants to give "church asylum" to smokers. the founding protocol has been sent to the federal state's government in Kiel. The church should be an alterntaive for people who have problöems with the stiff poractcicing asnd kneeling in other religions, instead smking and talk at beer and cigarettes are offered.

It is highly questionable that the request to be recognised as a corporate body of public law (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts) will be successful. If it fails, the bar owner wants to call the European court for human rights.


:dead:

You are right in that it'll be refused, but to be frank, worse concessions have been granted in the name of religion before. It'll arguably be somewhat hypocritical to refuse.