Comments on: 40-year employee fired for smoking — too harsh?

By: CF

CF — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:47:40 +0000

We recently had a situation in my town where an employee was smoking outside the building & threw their cigarette in a cardboard dumpster. It caught fire & the entire restaurant where he worked next to it burned to the ground w/in 20 minutes.

Yes – employees should be held accountable for not smoking in designated areas.

By: Ed 3

Ed 3 — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:50:03 +0000

Wow I agree with John – scarry world.

Time on my hands?

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:31:30 +0000

The policy said “No Smoking”. What did the policy say would be done to an offender? IF it said a first time offender would be terminated, case closed.

Issue a policy and stick to it, regardless of length of service, top performer, management, etc.

Consistency and you can not be critized.

P.S. – I have over 30 years in HR.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:27:10 +0000

Good job GB. I think you nailed it.

Brooke:
I know we all have it in our handbooks about dishonesty, lying, and falsification. I know we have applied it to omissions on applications or time card entries. However, there is a difference between lying in your day to day activities and lying when being investigated or grilled about your behavior. We all tend to rationalize and may minimize our behavior when in such a position. It’s human nature. Most courts and juries also know the difference, too.

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:03:02 +0000

Termination was the correct action to take. Before you get your tail feathers ruffled you should know this is coming from a smoker of 28 years. Would it still have been too harsh if he had ignited a fire and burned the place down? What if someone was hurt or killed? Negligence without results is still negligence.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:31:13 +0000

Regardless of the smoking, he lied at his disciplinary hearing. In any employee handbook, this in and of itself is falsification and is grounds for termination.

By: GB

GB — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:07:14 +0000

(1) Legally justified – perhaps if the facts are true. No smoking means no smoking. Rules must be followed by all.
(2) Ethical and/or the right thing to do – Well -let’s see. A 40 year employee surely has had to forgive the company many a sin. So perhaps a warning, with a note in his employee file, would have been the human and prudent thing to do first. This action is a little harsh, and certainly less than people first oriented.
(3) Rational – Questionable – If the designated smoking area is within proximity of the office in question, where’s the common sense? Certainly the confined office would be safer than an open smoking area around the flammables.

By: Diane

Diane — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:52:17 +0000

Smoking inside a workplace is and always has been one of the worst safety violations possible, jeopardizing not only the physical building and contents, but all other employees as well. There should be no opportunity for a 2nd offense. The first one should always result in termination.

By: Jeanette

Jeanette — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:49:35 +0000

As a California girl, we allow no smoking in any public buildings (including workplaces) or within 15 feet of them. However, an organization with highly flammable materials on site any where should have an absolute NO SMOKING policy. A 40 year employee should certainly have known better. Termination is justified if you ask me.

By: les

les — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:39:44 +0000

anyone smoking in this day and age should be fired for stupidity if for no other reason