2024-03-25 04:45:39
Entrepreneurs warn against the AfD, a doctor does not want to treat members: Dealing with the party in everyday life is controversial. A lawyer explains which measures are permitted in the work context.
t-online: The entrepreneur Reinhold Würth warns his employees not to vote for the AfD: Can an employer make a voting recommendation to his employees?
Alexander Bredereck: It always depends on who the employer is. Of course, it is not a problem for the SPD parliamentary group if an election recommendation is made for the SPD. But I don’t see any problem at all with Mr. Würth either. Of course, all basic rights also apply to the employer: he can have an opinion and express it. In my opinion, the question must always be asked: What can the employee do about it? And it becomes clear very quickly: there isn’t too much that can be done. Banning these statements through an injunction would not be successful. From a labor law perspective, I don’t see this as a problem.
Where would Reinhold Würth cross a line?
The limits would be reached if he took targeted action against AfD voters in the company. If he were to say now: All employees get a 100 euro bonus, except for AfD voters. That would then be unjustified unequal treatment or discriminatory unequal treatment.
To person
Alexander Bredereck is co-owner of the law firm Bredereck Willkomm in Berlin and Potsdam. He is a specialist lawyer for labor and tenancy law and often deals with dealing with the AfD in the work environment.
So it’s okay for a superior to make political recommendations, but it’s not acceptable if he treats employees differently because of political positions. What if he wants to know what his employees are voting for?
This is about bans on discrimination. There are questions where the employer would discriminate and which are therefore inadmissible – such as those relating to political orientation. The employee is even allowed to lie when asked questions like this. He can say: ‘I vote for the Greens’, even if he actually votes for the AfD. Even for questions beyond discrimination, there needs to be a legitimate reason and, above all, a connection to the world of work.
What if the employer doesn’t actively ask about the voting decision, but an employee openly acts as an AfD member?
This brings us to an area that is still open due to ongoing proceedings. This means that different cases must be distinguished. If someone is very open about their AfD membership when applying, the employer does not have to hire them and does not need a reason for rejection. If someone sympathizes with the AfD during their current employment relationship, but the boss doesn’t, there’s little they can do. As long as the AfD is not considered to be firmly right-wing extremist, termination would most likely be discriminatory and therefore ineffective. In the event that it is classified as a right-wing extremist, civil servants would be the first to be at risk.
Now the mood is also heated towards other parties such as the Greens. When dealing with political parties in the workplace, do the same rules apply to the AfD and the Greens?
I wouldn’t say the same rules because there are already employment relationships where there could already be problems. I’m thinking especially of the entire critical infrastructure. And this happens gradually: the more critically the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the AfD, the more difficult it becomes for members. At some point this will also affect normal employers. It would also have an impact on social media if I made a direct connection to my employer. So if I mention him on my Facebook profile and write ‘I am a cashier at the AfD regional association’, the employer can also take action if the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has a certain assessment.