Judge Orders Injunction Against Taking Better Paying Job

According to the article, there isn’t an actual judgment; the judge basically granted temporary stay until a longer hearing could be scheduled.

But it’s still a shit ruling.

21 Likes

I realize that this would be applying little people rules upward rather than downward; but if you are going to use a ‘claim of community harm’ basis; wouldn’t an injunction forcing the hospital to make competitive counteroffers to retain any staff needed to meet whatever level of service it sets out to provide be as or more reasonable than an injunction forcing the employees to just suck it up?

20 Likes

Yeah I think this isn’t “keep working there forever” but more like “everyone stand down until we can hear the all facts.”

Which is still stupid and wrong.

16 Likes

That’s true; I’m just unclear on what the longer hearing is supposed to be about: a temporary stay certainly has a lower standard of proof: you just need to have something plausible enough to constitute a case during the actual hearing, rather than winning that case; but I’m not sure what there will be to talk about at the hearing proper.

9 Likes

Almost the same, kind of…

My wife worked as a district manager for a large franchisee for close to 20 years. She had a reputation in that particular fast food brand. When she was no longer happy with her employer she put the feelers out. Lots of interest but…

She had no contracts with anyone, but, the franchisee contract with the mother ship said they could not hire employees from other franchisees unless their current employer okayed it.

Huh?

Went to a lawyer who said making her a party to their contract without her knowing or consenting was a problem, however, fighting it would be a losing battle.

Every time I hear someone say if people want more money they should just find a better paying job I get really angry because they all believe it’s just that easy. It’s damn near impossible when these employers all conspire together to keep people poor.

I kind of get the problem with this case but there is a simple solution, make a counter offer to keep your employees. It should never have ended up in court and the judge should never heard it. There are no contracts or agreements between two separate businesses.

The ruling should have told hospital one to make a counter offer or kiss the employees and their trauma center goodbye.

I also wonder if stories like this would ever incentivize non maskers/anti vaxxers to stand up and take notice. If they don’t stop flooding the hospitals they’re going to lose community health centers. Yeah, probablly not.

17 Likes

In an at-will state like CA, that would be a restraint of trade. You can always hop to another job with rival company. Also, to allow both hospitals to come to an agreement seems to encourage a certain collusion by management in the face of acceptable labor practices. (I thought that Silicon Valley tech companies got slapped over something like this.)

But I also wonder if a CA judge would also be fooled by such scary lawyer words during a pandemic?

14 Likes

Are the employees forbidden to start the new job (as mentioned in the article) or to leave the old one.
Because if it is the former, the injunction itself contributes to the community harm, as the employees are probably not going back to the old job.

An unrelated question:
Is it common for people to start working at the new job immediately after leaving the old one without taking a few days to rest/decompress?

2 Likes

Only in instances when one’s landlord, utility companies, etc. do not also allow those few days of rest.

24 Likes

In this case the workers are part of a specialized group, and i guess they had a good salary, despite the bad employer.
It seems strange to me that even people like that are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot take a small income hit, even considering that they will have a higher salary in the new job to help compensate it.

The article is a bit vague on specifics, but I’m guessing it’s an order to prevent the rival hospital from hiring the employees, not a prohibition against the employees leaving and working at a different hospital. (It might functionally amount to the same thing if their only desire is to work at that one rival hospital, but legally I think it is different. IANAL, though. So, dunno.)

2 Likes

I think the concern is that there’s no guarantee they will get that job and the higher salary until they actually start.

Employment instability is hard to navigate.

15 Likes

It is my understanding that that is in fact the basis of the legal action (the first hospital accused the second of “poaching their staff”), and that the specific injunction here is just a temporary stay until the facts of that suit can be presented (on Monday).

So, in terms of specifics, this is not a huge thing- Party A accuses Party B of wrongdoing, judge orders everyone to hold up for a few days until they can present evidence. HOWEVER, in context, this is so absolutely WHAT THE FUCKING SHIT that it’s hard to imagine what could have possibly been going through the judge’s mind- Because the context absolutely is “are employees in an at will employment state allowed to go work for a competitor?”

9 Likes

Everyone stand down with no job until we work this out…

McGinnis told lawyers for both health systems they should try to work out a temporary agreement by the end of the day Friday about the employees’ status until Monday’s hearing.

Otherwise, he said, the order prohibiting them from going to work at Ascension would be final until a further ruling was made. That means the seven health care workers would not be working at either hospital on Monday.

The idea that the former employer could prevent them from working period (in the short term) because that organization’s leaders decided if they can’t have them then nobody will is scary. That a judge is enabling this makes me wonder about their background, campaign contributions (they’re elected in WI), etc. Is it weird that none of the reports mention this judge’s name? :thinking:

This idea of controlling workers beyond their terms of employment and against state law needs to die in a fire. Remember the accusations of poaching and lawsuits over the development of self-driving cars? All those fights over limiting industry non-compete clauses in contracts? Corporations in pursuit of greater profits in any industry would just love for the courts to back them up on tactics like this.

16 Likes

(excerpt) Attorney Sean Bosack, who represented ThedaCare Friday, argued that losing the majority of these employees poses a health threat to the region

It would be very interesting to see how this plays out if the judge happens to be against vaccination/mask mandates.

8 Likes

Yep. The ruling isn’t directed at the nurses. It’s directed at the new employer, saying “you can’t hire them until this is sorted out.” Likely there’s a non-compete clause somewhere.

And yeah, the judge is a known jackass.

17 Likes

Score an obvious victory for workers’ rights.

24 Likes

NPR got their hands on Ascension’s official response filed with the court, and it’s brutal.

With this frantic, last-minute lawsuit, ThedaCare attempts to convert its own poor management into a disruptive personal emergency for everyone—anyone—but itself: Ascension, this Court, and (worst of all) seven essential health care workers who, until Friday, believed they were starting new jobs on Monday morning. The evidence already emerging confirms that ThedaCare’s “emergency” is entirely of its own making. This is true in the ordinary sense of that phrase: Ascension has not “poached” any employees; they left ThedaCare unprompted, and ThedaCare has only itself to blame for failing to maintain a competitive working environment for its medical staff, opting instead to underpay its essential workers and even refusing to make a matching offer to these employees when given ample opportunity to do so. Moreover, ThedaCare has known of this departure for weeks: the employees announced their employment offe rs from Ascension on December 21 and their resignations on December 29, and ThedaCare rejected multiple alternatives for retaining or replacing them—some of which ar e still available to ThedaCare today—opting instead to waste its money and everyone’s time on this frivolous lawsuit. But this emergency is also of ThedaCare’s making in a second, much more troubling sense: ThedaCare has invented the emergency ostensibly justifying th is lawsuit. As the facts will show, allowing seven health care workers to leave ThedaCare for the hosp ital of their choosing— Ascension’s St. Elizabeth Hospital, not even seven miles away—will not plunge the Fox Valley into a critical care crisis, as ThedaCare claims. St. Elizabeth already offers the medical services at issue, just without the fancy designation ThedaCare appears to view as a better use of funds than paying its workers. And Green Bay is and will remain available as a backup option—no need for diversion to Milwaukee or Madison. In short, this emergency is entirely of ThedaCare’s making because ThedaCare is making it up.

ThedaCare alone is responsible for its reputation and the potential loss of its Level II trauma verification and its Comprehensive Stroke Center certification. There is no basis—legal, factual, or otherwise—for ThedaCare’s apparent belief that other health care facilities havea duty to monitor ThedaCare’s accreditation status and avoid hiring decisions that could jeopardize that status, then be subjected to lawsuits if ThedaCare’s employees wish to leave anyway. Ultimately, while ThedaCare touts its significant investment in developing its trauma care program, it failed to invest in it s most important asset: its own employees. Even as it made more money as a result of its certifications, ThedaCare failed to adequately compensate its caregivers. Had it done so, perhaps it would not have lost th em to another facility. Having lost them now, ThedaCare can pull resources from other locations, or from outside agencies, just like any other healthcare system. It could hire traveling staff through an outsid e agency. ThedaC are is simply refusing to spend what it costs, continuing the pattern that led it here in the first place. Instead, it has spent its time and resources planning its legal strategy and filing this lawsuit. From start to finish, the alleged harm—if any—was caused by ThedaCare’s own actions and inaction.

24 Likes

On Fire Burn GIF by Us

Sick Burn GIF by MOODMAN

Seriously, our local hospital has been pulling this shit for the last year or more. All their oncologists quit, which leaves me in an awkward position, most of their primary care providers have left, urologists same. Their plan is to bring new grads in on 5 year contracts, then let them go and repeat. Except there don’t seem to be very many willing to come work in those conditions. I’ve said before, profit motivation is killing healthcare in our country. I am close enough to retirement that it won’t burn me too much, but the younger folks? Damn, man, no wonder they are leaving the profession.

Have to say, they have not sued anybody to stop them leaving at least. They seem perfectly OK with it.

22 Likes

My last job hop i was with one job Friday and started the other that Monday, i used the last week at old job to rest/decompress. :slight_smile: They weren’t going to give me work when it would just have to be re-assigned anyway.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.