Boss fires staff for not smoking!

bookworm_020 · 01-09-08, 06:59 PM

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

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bos...554775007.html

Ducimus · 01-09-08, 07:05 PM

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

Skybird · 01-09-08, 07:19 PM

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 · 01-09-08, 07:43 PM

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

SUBMAN1 · 01-09-08, 08:20 PM

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 · 01-09-08, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

Reaves · 01-10-08, 12:43 AM

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 · 01-10-08, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

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 · 01-10-08, 06:00 AM

What next? :hmm:

Penelope_Grey · 01-10-08, 06:50 AM

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 · 01-10-08, 07:10 AM

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!

) 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 · 01-10-08, 04:09 PM

Quote:

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

STEED · 01-10-08, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramius

Quote:

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

Watch out Gordon Brown.

Penelope_Grey · 01-10-08, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

You also ignore the originator prnciple (again!

) 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 · 01-10-08, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

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.

01-09-08, 06:59 PM	#1
bookworm_020 Navy Seal Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sinking ships off the Australian coast Posts: 5,966 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	Boss fires staff for not smoking! I wonder how the law deals with this, an unfair dismissal???:hmm: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bos...554775007.html __________________ "There is always one person in any organization who knows whats going on, That person must be fired"

01-09-08, 07:19 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,616 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-09-08, 07:43 PM	#4
kiwi_2005 Eternal Patrol Join Date: May 2004 Location: Aeoteroa Posts: 7,382 Downloads: 223 Uploads: 1	hehe that must be a first. 'Power to the smokers' __________________ RIP kiwi_2005 Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others.

01-09-08, 08:20 PM	#5
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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 __________________

01-10-08, 12:43 AM	#7
Reaves The Old Man Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,509 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

01-09-08, 07:05 PM	#2
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Didn't i just see this on Fark.com? :rotfl:

01-10-08, 06:00 AM	#9
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	What next? :hmm: __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

01-10-08, 06:50 AM	#10
Penelope_Grey Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,893 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ I SURVIVED THE FIRST EVER SUBSIM WEREWOLF HUNT - and... I actually won the game for the humans too!

01-10-08, 07:10 AM	#11
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,616 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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! ) 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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.