Diese 5 Sätze im Büro können dich den Job kosten

Summary of main arguments (5 workplace “don’ts” and their legal risks)

Presenter: The video is presented by Pascal Croset, an employment-law specialist. He argues that workplace conversations are rarely truly “private” and can later be used against employees in labor-court proceedings. He outlines five things employees should keep to themselves, including potential legal consequences and better alternatives.

1) Don’t complain personally about colleagues/bosses in private chat groups

• Croset explains that WhatsApp/other chat groups are not reliably confidential. They can be overheard, forwarded, or later come to the employer’s attention.
• He cites a Federal Labour Court case: employees mocked colleagues in a group chat; the employer learned of it, and the employee was dismissed. The employee’s argument that it was a private group failed because courts viewed confidentiality as unreliable in practice.
• Key distinction:
  • Objective criticism is generally protected.
  • Personal, derogatory, hurtful language—especially sexual or scatological insults—creates major risk.
• Practical rule: If you wouldn’t say it out loud in a meeting, don’t write it in chat.

2) Don’t overshare medical details when you’re sick

• Employees often tell their boss or colleagues too much about their illness “because it feels polite.”
• Croset argues the issue isn’t sickness itself, but the level of detail, because the doctor’s incapacity certificate carries strong evidentiary weight and the employer may try to undermine it by pointing to inconsistencies.
• Example risk: mentioning activities like being present during a move or doing side work can lead to doubt about the genuineness or extent of sick leave.
• Recommendation: short sick note, no extra explanations, no updates/photos.

3) Don’t signal you’re leaving before you’re actually ready (e.g., through workplace rumor)

• Croset says applying for other jobs while employed is legitimate, but if others find out, the employer’s incentives change.
• Logic: employers pay severance only if dismissal becomes risky and expensive. If the employer believes you’ll leave voluntarily soon, severance negotiations weaken.
• Recommended tactic: secure a new job first, then resign—don’t fuel office gossip.
• In some cases, he suggests it may help to discuss severance strategy with the employer in advance.

4) Don’t tell coworkers about your legal strategy during a conflict

• When an employee receives a warning, reassignment, or harassment claim—and then says things like “I consulted a lawyer; the boss will be surprised”—Croset says it causes two problems:
  1. You destroy the “element of surprise.” The employer can prepare documents and defenses.
  2. You turn coworkers into potential witnesses, which can weaken the employee’s later position (including the court’s assessment of memory and dynamics).
• He notes there is a formal prohibition on retaliation, but in practice proving discrimination can be difficult.
• Therefore, he recommends getting advice first, letting a lawyer handle it, and keeping workplace knowledge limited before any proceedings.

5) You can talk about salary—just don’t handle it the wrong way

• Croset challenges common online claims that employees are not allowed to discuss wages.
• He argues:
  • Contractual salary-talk restrictions are invalid because they infringe on the employee’s freedom to pursue work (citing Article 12 of the Basic Law).
  • However, casual salary gossip (“kitchen talk”) can still backfire—socially (envy) and reputationally (being labeled a troublemaker if it reaches management).
• Better approach he recommends:
  • Under the Pay Transparency Act, in companies with more than 200 employees, employees can request written information on comparable salaries between genders (typically using median/benchmark figures rather than everyone’s exact pay).
  • The employer must respond within three months.
  • He claims European transparency rules may further enable this approach.
• Bottom line: Don’t rely on informal chatter; use formal legal rights to demand pay transparency and pursue equal-pay claims if applicable.

Overall conclusion

Croset’s overarching message: there are effectively no confidential conversations at work—especially in chat groups or break rooms. Statements can resurface later as court evidence, often “relatively often” in labor disputes. He concludes that the employer will eventually ask questions in proceedings, and he says he will cover what to watch for in the next video.

Presenters / contributors

• Pascal Croset — employment law specialist