letters to politicians
Mr. Tönnies and his subcontractors are demanding compensation for the continued wages of their employees who have been quarantined. After all, the butchers weren't allowed to sharpen the knives and cut the grilled meat out of the pig for dinner. And finally, the employers had to continue to pay wages, despite the quarantine.
First of all, it is legal. The Infection Protection Act provides for this.
Paragraph 56 states: “In the case of employees, the employer must pay compensation to the competent authority for the duration of the employment relationship, for a maximum of six weeks. The amounts paid out will be reimbursed to the employer upon request by the competent authority.”
It is certainly necessary to check whether occupational safety standards have been violated and whether claims for damages by the authorities could be asserted against the company Tönnies, but this is irrelevant at first.
The authority ordered a quarantine, so the authority has to compensate. So say the law. Point.
Now, however, politicians are stepping on the scene and getting frustrated.
Julia Klöckner (CDU) puts it on record: "I have little understanding for that." And "Citizens' anger will certainly not decrease with the current approach."
The North Rhine-Westphalian Labor Minister, Karl-Josef Laumann, says: "If I were Mr. Tönnies and his business partners, I would think very carefully about what we actually want to expect from the citizens of North Rhine-Westphalia."
Green parliamentary group leader Anton Hofreiter postulates that the full-bodied speeches by Mr. Tönnies “were just empty words and you cannot trust the company management. […] Anyone who relies on a system of exploitation, who risks people’s health and who shares responsibility for the quarantine measures that have been ordered, should refrain from exhausting possible claims for reimbursement,” says Hofreiter.
The ubiquitous FDP General Secretary Linda Teuteberg calls for compensation to be waived and states: “An entire region has already been taken hostage for this. I find it indecent to want to be compensated at the expense of the taxpayer.”
And the deputy chairwoman of the SPD parliamentary group, Katja Mast, also thinks: “Infection events and the business model are related. Tönnies brought the lockdown in Gütersloh and now the general public should pay? […] Moral and social responsibility looks different.”
So it's about morals.
So it's about what would be "morally impeccable" and "decent". How should an entrepreneur behave who takes responsibility for his decisions? Can't he just waive his vested rights because decency dictates?
Okay, Ms. Klöckner, Mr. Laumann, Mr. Hofreiter, Ms. Teuteberg and Ms. Mast, let's talk about morality and decency.
First of all, it would be decent to express self-criticism, self-criticism at the fact that such inhuman conditions as at Tönnies were tolerated for years, possibly even sponsored.
Self-criticism of the apparently poor implementation of the Infection Protection Act, which allows such "immoral" compensation.
You just decided on a few changes in the Infection Protection Act. These changes went through the Bundestag and Bundesrat. All parties involved in the above-mentioned critics. Nobody can talk their way out. Why didn't you just make the law morally sound?
And speaking of morals.
If it is morally reprehensible to compensate, if companies possibly knowingly, or at least condoningly, accept joint responsibility for the ordering of quarantine measures, then at least one question can be asked:
Isn't it morally imperative to finally adequately compensate companies that get into trouble through orders under the Infection Protection Act, even if this compensation is not provided for in the law?
Act at last and live up to your morals and responsibility, which you also demand from entrepreneurs!
https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Toennies-kassiert-Schelte-fuer-Ersatz-Forderung-article21905328.html
„
