Boss fires staff for not smoking!

[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! ) 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.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Ramius

Watch out Gordon Brown.

[Penelope_Grey]

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.

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]

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.

[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.