The employees are probably not parties, and they haven’t been enjoined. Ascension was enjoined. ThedaCare asked for the status quo to be preserved, and have accused Ascension of wrongdoing in hiring away the entire staff of a highly specialized unit. It’s at least plausible that Ascension did so not just with the intention of benefitting themselves, but also of harming a competitor. Also, if employees leave one at a time, it’s relatively straightforward to replace them, even if you can’t do it right away. If the entire staff of a specialized unit leaves en mass, in a tight labor market, it may take much more time to replace them all, and the unit will have to shut down for lack of qualified staff.
In earlier posts you seemed extremely confident that the employees would be properly compensated for their losses:
Now you’re saying the judge may be contemplating it and they might get it next month - if they can present the right evidence. That means spending money on a lawyer, money which they may well not have.
I guess my problem lies exactly with that idea that “we can deal with money later”, which is only really true for governments, large corporations and rich people. It is often not true for working people who live month-to-month - and in my view the court should take account of that when fashioning a temporary remedy. I do accept that this is not the way the law currently works.
Of course to get money damages they will have to have the “right evidence.” Just like how ThedaCare will have to have the right evidence to continue the injunction.
We are talking about people making the same money that they always have vs. people dying. Which side do you err on?
ETA: When fashioning an “over the weekend” remedy.
Oh FFS, hyperbole much? The employees in question are NURSES working in INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY. This is NOT a critical care position and nobody’s gonna die if they don’t get imaged RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND. Go google “is interventional radiology considered critical care” and look at page after page of results that boil down to “nope.” Get a grip.
Even if Ascension did intend to harm ThedaCare, would that be illegal?
That is surely the risk that the employer runs with at-will employment? If they wanted to ensure they didn’t lose lots of staff at short notice, they could have signed contracts with them that included longer notice periods. Of course, then they might have had to grant other benefits - like corresponding notice periods for the employees in the event of layoffs.
I guess that’s what underlies a lot of the public outrage about this - American corporate employers have long lobbied for “at-will employment”, and enforced it with merciless harshness to their own benefit. Now that it’s benefiting some employees, the courts suddenly step in?
What the judge is doing makes sense to me, now that it’s been established that there is some cause of action being alleged in the realm of prohibited business activity. Recall, what led to much of the initial confusion over this situation stemmed from the near total absence of relevant details provided by the primary news source. Also–and this isn’t a dig–I will note that the thread title perhaps has contributed to some confusion: as noted, the judge isn’t explicitly requiring the employees to continue working at ThredaCare, rather he is preventing Ascension from employing them, which might plausibly have the effect of them continuing to work at ThedaCare, but there’s a lot of nuance in there that got missed as a result of the initial reporting (because, again, the news source didn’t seem to think explaining the legal basis for the temporary injunction was worth it).
Nevertheless, I hope that the end result here is better conditions for the employees, because I know that patients are screwed no matter what given the way we run our healthcare “system” in this country. In as much as we have only an employees word for it that a fair offer was made with time for ThedaCare to consider, we also only have ThedaCare’s word that Asension has allegedly engaged in prohibited business activities, and that those activities might further cause irrevocable harm in the form of patient deaths if the courts don’t intervene. Unlike the courts, I am not inclined to give equal credit to the positions of the opposing parties at this stage: where we have competing claims between an employer trying to force someone to keep working for them and an employee trying to earn a living, the tie goes to the employees as far as I’m concerned.
Over the weekend. Not long term. There is no judge in back pocket of any corporation. It is a TRO. A TRO!!!
If the injunction is actually lifted tomorrow I will accept that it was indeed an “over the weekend” remedy which just has some bad optics. Howver the order is in fact described as “final until a further ruling was made”. What assurance do the employees have that the judge will actually make a ruling tomorrow?
EDIT:
If a hospital laid off a bunch of nurses, and the nurses asked the court for a TRO to prevent the layoff - saying that patient care would be affected by understaffing and patients could die - would a court ever grant such a TRO? To be clear this is not a rhetorical question, I am genuninely asking if it could plausibly happen.
That might be just to be able to plead a cause of action. That’s not my area of law, but I wouldn’t think it would be illegal if I like the design team of ASL_v2.0 Inc. and make them all offers to come and work for Ultravires, Inc. That would hurt your business, but at the end of the day, if we are in competition, we are sort of out to hurt each other’s businesses.
I don’t know. It’s not really my area. If they made a facially plausible argument, then I would think so. If it turns out to be a simple disagreement about necessary staffing levels, then they might be advised not to file the TRO to begin with because of the financial costs imposed on them by the court down the road. Perhaps no lawyer would file it if it was about a simple disagreement. It is very fact specific.
If you come from the base belief that the system is corrupt and out to screw the little guy and no justice is to be had anywhere, then I can’t talk you out of that belief.
But at the end of the day, a judge will look at this and do what is legally correct by all parties, and if the evidence is as presented in this thread, the judge has broad powers to make sure that: 1) patients continue to get care, 2) that employees get paid what they legally contracted for with the new company, and 3) do something so that such a thing doesn’t happen again. But the judge can’t do any of that until evidence is presented from both sides so he can decide what actually needs done. At this point, he has simply been told that people will die if he does not stop it over the weekend.
Where is the +1 button?
I basically don’t think there is a situation where a court making effectively taking emergency power over an economic emergency is a better solution than a president/governor etc. doing so.
And if we get to the point where they actually delay the hiring, there isn’t really a way to maintain the status quo until some remedy can occur. The new employer is going to have to staff those positions and then you have the people who were just hired essentially having to reapply for their jobs. Not to mention that there is now an arbitrary standard for when/how you get to change jobs that will have a chilling effect on people trying to switch perpetually into the future.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I mean yeah, that’s the likely reason for this entire lawsuit, if it wasn’t just spite.
Let’s just say that yes, people will be in the street dying by the dozens if these employees move from one hospital to another. Legally, can the court force them as private citizens to give up their right to take on better employment? What duty of care do they owe potential patients that forces them to stay at a place they don’t want to be at? Could this go further and a hospital force the leading heart surgeon to work for them at minimum wage otherwise “people will die”?
Again, keeping in mind that while the court is forcing them to not take the new job, they aren’t being forced to stay at the old place doing their old jobs, because the TRO isn’t actually out to make them help those potential patients.
I give up. NONE of this will happen and is not happening here.
I’m not so sure about this. It will depend on the ruling tomorrow - which may tell the employer in no uncertain terms that if they ever pull this shit again there will be hell to pay.
Sooooo . . . they get no pay unless they work their old jobs in the meanwhile? I doubt they can choose that so they de facto do need to return to their old job for now.