Boss fires non-smokers for disrupting smoker workplace

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2008-01-09 05:23pm

German boss fires staff for not smoking

The owner of a small German computer company has fired three non-smoking workers because they were threatening to disturb the peace after they requested a smoke-free environment.

The manager of the 10-person IT company in Buesum, named Thomas J., told the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper he had fired the trio because their non-smoking was causing disruptions. Germany introduced non-smoking rules in pubs and restaurants on Jan. 1, but Germans working in small offices are still allowed to smoke.

"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas was quoted saying. "We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge. I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-01-09 06:01pm

I looked this up on some sites, and I found at least one paper doubting this whole thing happened at all...
But in case it really happened, the layoffs are basically null and void. The law is against him and when the labour courts are through with it, he'll have to take them back or pay them compensation.

Napoleon the Clown · Post by **Napoleon the Clown** » 2008-01-10 03:35am

Even if he doesn't get beaten on by labor laws he's still shooting himself in the foot. He's significantly reducing the number of employees he has and he's likely to lose business from the whole pissing people off thing.

Does anyone know German labor laws well enough to say whether or not this guy has anything to worry about as far as legal repercussions go?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-01-10 04:02am

I read the title and immediately guessed this came from Florida... or Germany. What a shocker.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-01-10 05:41am

Napoleon the Clown wrote:Even if he doesn't get beaten on by labor laws he's still shooting himself in the foot. He's significantly reducing the number of employees he has and he's likely to lose business from the whole pissing people off thing.

Does anyone know German labor laws well enough to say whether or not this guy has anything to worry about as far as legal repercussions go?

He cannot fire people just because they don't smoke and want a smoke-free environment. They actually have a legal right to demand such a workplace, and the employer has to do it if they want.
In the end, the court would almost certainly declare the layoff null and void. Then he either can take them back, or he can come to an agreement with those he fired for which he will have to pay compensations.
Getting someone fired in a water-tight way is a bit trickier than in less regulated countries.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2008-01-10 01:55pm

If the boss had been smart about it, he would have found other reasons to fire these people instead of just coming out and spewing his prejudice against non-smokers. I hope this guy gets nailed to the wall by the DOL or whatever the equivalent is in Germany.

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2008-01-10 02:25pm

What is with the Germans and Smoking?

As everyone on this board should know, i am no fan of that stupid filthy disgusting habbit, but this just revolts me to no end. These lot of bastards who think that for some bizzare reason that dislike of that disgusting habbit is synonamous with discrimination like racism and such make me red in the face.

Zor

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2008-01-10 09:26pm

I'm curious, Dahak, what's the threshold for that 'must comply' bit? If an office of fifty people is a smoking environment, and one guy says 'hey, that ain't cool' do his wishes outweigh the 49 people he works with? Personally, I can't stand smoking, I'm just curious where the break point is in German law.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-10 10:13pm

White Haven wrote:I'm curious, Dahak, what's the threshold for that 'must comply' bit? If an office of fifty people is a smoking environment, and one guy says 'hey, that ain't cool' do his wishes outweigh the 49 people he works with? Personally, I can't stand smoking, I'm just curious where the break point is in German law.

Really, the only sensible law is to make all workplaces non-smoking, regardless of the ratio of smokers to non-smokers in any given workplace. If you had to classify tobacco smoke under the WHMIS system, you would end up classifying it as a hazardous substance and requiring protective measures.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2008-01-10 10:42pm

Oh, I'm not arguing that point at all, I'm just curious from what Dahak said of how German law does it.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-01-11 04:49am

White Haven wrote:I'm curious, Dahak, what's the threshold for that 'must comply' bit? If an office of fifty people is a smoking environment, and one guy says 'hey, that ain't cool' do his wishes outweigh the 49 people he works with? Personally, I can't stand smoking, I'm just curious where the break point is in German law.

The law says that an employer has to take necessary steps to protect non-smoking employees from smoke.
That means it protects any employee, even if 49 people would like to smoke in the office.

Oh, and it has been confirmed that this whole story is basically a joke. The guy just wanted how unfair smokers are treated...

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-01-11 05:27am

Darth Wong wrote: Really, the only sensible law is to make all workplaces non-smoking, regardless of the ratio of smokers to non-smokers in any given workplace. If you had to classify tobacco smoke under the WHMIS system, you would end up classifying it as a hazardous substance and requiring protective measures.

In Polish law, smokers are not allowed to smoke in the office at all. The employer has to provide a proper, separate smoking room for them, but otherwise can (and should, according the safety regulations!) ban smoking outside of it.

Also, smokers aren't allowed any more special breaks than non-smokers. It's fair to say that workplaces in Poland are classified as non-smoking - and thank god for that.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-01-12 02:11am

Mike is right. You have to draw the line on issues of health over vice. Smoking is not in any way, shape or form a beneficial or productive habit, and it is definitely proven to be a CLEAR detriment to those exposed to it second-hand.

If this was any other toxic substance it wouldn't even be an issue. Human beings have an amazing capacity for hypocrisy when you challenge behaviors that have been ok for years after they are reevaluated.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2008-01-12 03:52pm

Dahak wrote:Oh, and it has been confirmed that this whole story is basically a joke. The guy just wanted how unfair smokers are treated...

The poor thing.

When people complain that someone cut the limberger, the farter is embarassed; when they complain about that smoking reek, the smoker is all righteously indignant. Fascinating.