Boss fires staff for not smoking

[Pistons < Spurs]

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 January 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."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...63983120080110

[Cry Havoc]

What an idiot.

[Fillmoe]

lol............ LAWSUIT!

[OldDirtMcGirt]

it. More power to him.

[Extra Stout]

It is not so easy as that to fire an employee in Germany. There is no chance the local Arbeitsgericht will uphold the terminations.

[Hook Dem]

[polandprzem]

Damn I hate smokers!

I'm forced to smell all that toxins and unpleasant as smoke at my job.
in Poland they are about to provide the smoking prohibition. And hopefully the police will obey that rule and ticket those bastartds!


Thanks

[tlongII]

Frickin Euros.

[polandprzem]

you you fascist

you don't like smoke? then work somewhere else, eat somewhere else, drink somewhere else, start your own company, lazy ass

You ing american go smoke somwhere else you .

You don't like me hating smoke?
Screw you and your ing cigaretts !

[Cry Havoc]

you you fascist

you don't like smoke? then work somewhere else, eat somewhere else, drink somewhere else, start your own company, lazy ass

You have a civil right to smoke.

And I believe I have a civil right as well not to breathe in toxins because you wanted to be "so cool" and hang out with all the "rad kids" when you were 16 and now you're addicted to something that has complete control over you. To weak to quit? Don't give us crap about it. It's not our fault you enjoy ingesting poison.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You have a civil right to smoke.

And I believe I have a civil right as well not to breathe in toxins because you wanted to be "so cool" and hang out with all the "rad kids" when you were 16 and now you're addicted to something that has complete control over you.

I wasn't aware cigarettes were invented in the 80's, I could have sworn I've seen them smoked before those times.

[johngateswhiteley]

hilarious...and while i don't smoke and prefer not to be around it, i've always held the owner of a business can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

...so, whatever.

[mavs>spurs2]

hilarious...and while i don't smoke and prefer not to be around it, i've always held the owner of a business can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

...so, whatever.

Nah, thank God for labor laws, otherwise you could be fired because you're black, white, tall, short, etc.

[johngateswhiteley]

Nah, thank God for labor laws, otherwise you could be fired because you're black, white, tall, short, etc.

thats right, and i'm OK with it. Business owners should be able to run their business however they want...i've always felt that way and nothing can change my mind.

[DarkReign]

More to power to the guy. He owns the joint, he can run as he sees fit.

[DarkReign]

You ing american go smoke somwhere else you .

You don't like me hating smoke?
Screw you and your ing cigaretts !

And what the does him being an American have to do with the conversation?

"Please government stop all those pesky smokers for me!! *cough* HELP! *cough*"

[Jimcs50]

[polandprzem]

you you fascist

[Magic_Johnson]

Damn I hate smokers!

I'm forced to smell all that toxins and unpleasant as smoke at my job.
in Poland they are about to provide the smoking prohibition. And hopefully the police will obey that rule and ticket those bastartds!


Thanks

In France, since the january 1st we can't smoke at some public place (restaurant, bar ...) and at work anymore.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The right to safety in the workplace overrules the right to smoke in the workplace, and if you don't think 2nd hand smoking causes cancer then you're a ing moron. Here's a fact sheet from the US EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

Oz has had no smoking in the workplace for over a decade. If you want to smoke, go outside on your break. How hard is that?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The right to safety in the workplace overrules the right to smoke in the workplace, and if you don't think 2nd hand smoking causes cancer then you're a ing moron. Here's a fact sheet from the US EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

People are still using the EPA study to base their arguments on second hand smoke?

Talk about ing moronic:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

[DarkReign]

The right to safety in the workplace overrules the right to smoke in the workplace, and if you don't think 2nd hand smoking causes cancer then you're a ing moron. Here's a fact sheet from the US EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

Oz has had no smoking in the workplace for over a decade. If you want to smoke, go outside on your break. How hard is that?

Fine. But I dont have to employ your ass either.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

loinfan - okay, don't like that one, how about these more recent reports from across the world:

National Health and Medical Research Council - The Health Effects of Passive Smoking Canberra, Australia, 1997

California EPA (Cal/EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment - Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Sacramento, California, United States, 1997

Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health - Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
London, United Kingdom, 1998

World Health Organization International - Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health. Consultation Report
Geneva, Switzerland, 1999

IARC Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking
Lyon, France, 2004

Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment - Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant
Sacramento, California, United States, 2005

And then there's the Surgeon General's 2006 report (citation at bottom if you care to read it):

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet6.html

Riddle me this - smoking causes many forms of cancer (undeniable), the smoke released into the air is exactly the same as that inhaled (undeniable), so why would second hand smoke have a different impact on the body than directly inhaled smoke? It doesn't, it kills people, and there's evidence from all over the world to prove it.

And why does your right to smoke in the workplace exceed my right not to breathe your smoke (especially when you can just go outside to smoke)?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Fine. But I dont have to employ your ass either.

Huh? So let's say I'm the best qualified person for the job, but don't want to work in a smoke-filled environment that could potentially kill me, you wouldn't hire me? By that reasoning, if I took the job that would make me a moron (and presumably you don't want a moron working for you), so essentially you've put us in a Catch 22 that makes you a moron. How about putting the workplace safety of your employees ahead of your addiction?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

REASON!? What a ing joke! This has nothing to do with rational thinking and everything to do with your bloody-minded at ude that your rights come before your responsibilities. You are trying to claim the right to smoke in the workplace - what about your responsibility not to injure your colleagues?????

ruffnreadyozstyle believes in forced biological tissue sampling by police officers at their discretion

of course he's going to be scared to death about his pink pussy lungs

Random alcohol breath testing of drivers (not the issue here) DOES NOT equal forced biological tissue sampling. Breath is not a "biological tissue". Oh, and let me see, there are 21 million other Australians who don't object to it either because we can see the sense in discouraging people from drink-driving and saving thousands of lives. It is a fair and objective test, unlike walking a line. Once again, it's a matter of your right to drink versus the right of other road users not to be killed by your carelessness. But no, your right to drink is more important than other people's lives!

You know what? I am getting really sick of you putting words in my mouth that I never said, and this is the fourth or fifth time you have done it. If you do it again, I will bring it to Kori and LJ's attention. You should be pinked for this .

Say what you like, but do not put words in my mouth.

BTW, I'm not scared of passive smoke, and the issue is not smoking itself, it is SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE. You're obviously too stupid to make the distinction. I have the occasional cigarette when I'm drunk, and I don't think it's a moral issue, but the workplace engenders SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I think we should have a poll on this - will see his talking , and wh's making sense. I'll put it up.