Boss fires staff for not smoking

[helderheid]

BERLIN (Reuters) - 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."

(Reporting by Sarah Roberts; editing by Giles Elgood)
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1063983120080110?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

[aquart]

1. Well, good. Someone should employ them.

And it's not like he has to worry about the cost of their healthcare.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. this should be interesting

Think the ones who were fired will sue to get unemployment? I can't imagine them wanting their jobs back.

[helderheid]

6. Germany isn't as "sue-happy" as the US - should be interesting!

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Good. Turn-about is fair play.

[Withywindle]

4. How do they feel about immigrants, I wonder?

I'm tempted to send a resumé.

[Iggo]

8. How does Germany feel about Immigrants?

God, there's got to be a joke there somewhere. Right, kids?

[Withywindle]

9. Heh.

Well, I meant this company in particular....XD

[onehandle]

5. I doubt this guy offers health insurance to his workers.

Hopefully, the fired workers can sue.

[helderheid]

7. This is in Germany... where they have universal healthcare

[onehandle]

10. Then he's just a prick. Hope they sue. I would. nt

[YOY]

12. The civilized world doesn't use health insurance

Health Insurance seems to put profits above health. Common sense works there I guess.

[ixion]

11. score one for the smokers...yeah!

:woohoo:

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Thumbs up to Thomas!

Sweet revenge.:thumbsup: Hiring smokers only! :rofl:

[NashVegas]

14. The Turnabout Is Delicious

After the hijinks of companies like Scott chemicals.

[riverdeep]

15. Interesting.

How much leeway does an employer have in deciding who should work for them-this is the fundamental question being raised. Keeping in mind this is Germany, not America, there are still some constants.

Using 'discriminate' in the broadest sense of the word, every employer discriminates-the question is what is legitimate? Every one discriminates against people who are incompetent or lazy or with bad people skills, that's considered acceptable by most liberals because it's directly job-related. But then things get stickier- waitresses that don't want to wear make-up? Job-related or misogynistic? Overweight workers that have a hard time keeping up with the line? Job-related or anti-disability? Can you fire someone on the basis of smoking, or here, not smoking?

Libertarians have an easier time here. They believe any basis for discrimination is okay. Not just qualities that are widely considered legitimate, but ANY quality whatsoever. Race, the color of their shoes, because they're gay, they make you look bad because they're more competent than you and threaten your own job, whatever. The theory is it's a self-correcting system in that eventually the employer loses out on competent employees, what the marketplace considers legitimate qualities, hurts their own business, and has to decide if it's worth it. It's never been tested, so there's that.