Boss fires staff for not smoking!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

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.

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. But I provoked you into proving you can be a non-smoker, and that is good for you, so you owe me one!

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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. But I provoked you into proving you can be a non-smoker, and that is good for you, so you owe me one!

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. 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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

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

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

[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.

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.