4 ms·

Can someone steelman this judges reasoning here for me? I just can’t see it. This seems like insanity to me in at at will state. The worst part is that the dama

Can someone steelman this judges reasoning here for me? I just can’t see it. This seems like insanity to me in at at will state. The worst part is that the damage has already been done. Employees that would have left their job to find better work will now be terrified of this happening to them unless we make laws explicitly forbidding this. It’s just like non competes. They’re mostly unenforceable but employers don’t want to risk someone trying to enforce it so they just won’t hire you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
afiori 5y ago
Just reposting another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30040209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30040209 > The point of the injunction isn't to come up with a perfectly fair solution. It's to prevent irreparable harm, as might be caused if the only level 2 trauma center in the area can no longer function. Any claims for compensation that the nurses have are still valid and can be settled later. As someone whose only law training is watching law review channels on YouTube I agree. Basically getting paid at the same rate rather than an increased rate is repairable harm (by paying money if the nurses win), forcing downtime at their clinic is not. This assumes that the old employers have some kind of legal standing to make their victory at least plausible.
- vsskanth 5y ago
  I don’t understand how encroaching on the civil liberties of citizens is legally allowed for keeping a medical center staffed (however necessary it is deemed to be). For example, is it legal for a town to, let’s say, select 5 people and say they can only work as firemen for the local fire station and no one else is allowed to employ them because we absolutely need a fire station ?
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    You can do so for law enforcement in some ways or at least historically could. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus
  - pxmpxm 5y ago
    Yeah, there's also the pragmatic aspect of that issue - you can probably guess the amount effort you'll get out of someone if you're actively trying to compel them into the role. It's probably not that great to have a fire station staffed by firemen that don't want to be firemen.
    - afiori 5y ago
      it beats not having a fire station likely.
  - afiori 5y ago
    In the context of ironmanning the position the framing is very different: Party A: the firemen. Party B: the city. A want to stop providing a service for B. B want A to keep providing the service. On all precedents, laws, and common sense they are allowed to do so. B claims that this will do irreparable damage to life/property/society and ask a judge to mediate the conflict and also to make B keep proving the service while the conflict is being mediated. In this specific case a fireman could not simply walk off the job in the middle of suppressing a fire, the city position is that firemen are always a critical infrastructure and either the firemen claim that the city is at fault for some reason or they guarantee continuity of the service they where providing.
    - vsskanth 5y ago
      In this context (the nurse case), the firemen are at will employees and don't have a contract with the city. They don't even have to provide notice. In addition to that, employees aren't property (as of 2022). They have certain rights and liberties that can't be taken away. So my original question still remains unanswered.
      - afiori 5y ago
        I was steelmanning the position of "a judge orders people where to work" and so I came up with a convoluted scenario where that could be argued to be true. Whether employees are property is a separate matter; In may situation the assumptions are 1) the firemen hold a specialized job with specialized requirements 1.a) it would take considerable time to replace them 2) their service is critical 3) they took responsibility for providing a service 4) the city did everything right and there is no material need to leave the job I am not surprised by this story being more nuanced. Another even more convoluted case: can all the personnel of a nuclear power plant walk off mid shift with no one to keep it working safely? Some jobs also include taking responsibility of others life, a best effort to keep the service running is not too much of a stretch.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Yes, the nuclear power plant workers can walk off mid shift. Hence the incentive for the employer to provide appropriate compensation and hire sufficient redundant staff. If you want redundancy and reliability, then pay for it. Limiting labor sellers’ freedom is unacceptable, especially when the labor buyers have no such expectations of commitment and can stop buying labor anytime they want. Society cannot have its cake and eat it too. This employer must have been grossly underpaying staff to have a whole team up and leave, especially educated professionals.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    Wisconsin had active mandatory public service laws as late as the early 1900s. My understanding is that they are still on the books … but that’s outdated information.
- daniel-thompson 5y ago
  > Basically getting paid at the same rate rather than an increased rate is repairable harm (by paying money if the nurses win), forcing downtime at their clinic is not. There is "downtime" at the old place either way, since the nurses are not going to show up at the old hospital on Monday anyway. From the TFA: > That means the seven health care workers would not be working at either hospital on Monday.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Steal man/devils advocate here. The judge didn't make the law. They are just communicating it. If you don't like the outcome, vote for politicians that will change the law. Note:I would have to see the court ruling to see what the basis in law is
SllX 5y ago
Can’t steelman an argument that isn’t in front of me, but it’s probably a unique decision to this case that relies on the following alleged facts: 1. Ascension Wisconsin poached 7 of ThedaCare’s staff in a short period of time that were all part of an 11 person team 2. ThedaCare-Neenah is the only Level II Trauma Center in Fox Valley and 3. the people on this team have a set of hard to replace skills that the people of Fox Valley depend on and 4. this is a temporary order, only sufficient time for ThedaCare to find replacements. So the damage you’re worried about being done? I don’t want to discount the damage this might do to the 7 people who tried to change employers, but ThedaCare wants them to stay, working, which means getting paid, for that time, and this is unlikely to realistically affect anyone in a completely different industry and profession. Was it a good or fair call by the judge? Hard to say, but the “this will set a new precedent” types of arguments against an order or decision rarely end up setting the kinds of sustainable precedents people imagine they could.
justin66 5y ago
> Can someone steelman this judges reasoning here for me? I just can’t see it. This seems like insanity to me in at at will state. I assume the judge believes that legislature's intent when making Wisconsin an at-will state was that this state of affairs would never protect individual employees and always be used to protect the interests of employers. I imagine he's right about that, too, although it's a disgusting thought and the employees will eventually prevail.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

afiori 5y ago

Just reposting another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30040209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30040209 > The point of the injunction isn't to come up with a perfectly fair solution. It's to prevent irreparable harm, as might be caused if the only level 2 trauma center in the area can no longer function. Any claims for compensation that the nurses have are still valid and can be settled later. As someone whose only law training is watching law review channels on YouTube I agree. Basically getting paid at the same rate rather than an increased rate is repairable harm (by paying money if the nurses win), forcing downtime at their clinic is not. This assumes that the old employers have some kind of legal standing to make their victory at least plausible.

vsskanth 5y ago
I don’t understand how encroaching on the civil liberties of citizens is legally allowed for keeping a medical center staffed (however necessary it is deemed to be). For example, is it legal for a town to, let’s say, select 5 people and say they can only work as firemen for the local fire station and no one else is allowed to employ them because we absolutely need a fire station ?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  You can do so for law enforcement in some ways or at least historically could. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus
- pxmpxm 5y ago
  Yeah, there's also the pragmatic aspect of that issue - you can probably guess the amount effort you'll get out of someone if you're actively trying to compel them into the role. It's probably not that great to have a fire station staffed by firemen that don't want to be firemen.
  - afiori 5y ago
    it beats not having a fire station likely.
- afiori 5y ago
  In the context of ironmanning the position the framing is very different: Party A: the firemen. Party B: the city. A want to stop providing a service for B. B want A to keep providing the service. On all precedents, laws, and common sense they are allowed to do so. B claims that this will do irreparable damage to life/property/society and ask a judge to mediate the conflict and also to make B keep proving the service while the conflict is being mediated. In this specific case a fireman could not simply walk off the job in the middle of suppressing a fire, the city position is that firemen are always a critical infrastructure and either the firemen claim that the city is at fault for some reason or they guarantee continuity of the service they where providing.
  - vsskanth 5y ago
    In this context (the nurse case), the firemen are at will employees and don't have a contract with the city. They don't even have to provide notice. In addition to that, employees aren't property (as of 2022). They have certain rights and liberties that can't be taken away. So my original question still remains unanswered.
    - afiori 5y ago
      I was steelmanning the position of "a judge orders people where to work" and so I came up with a convoluted scenario where that could be argued to be true. Whether employees are property is a separate matter; In may situation the assumptions are 1) the firemen hold a specialized job with specialized requirements 1.a) it would take considerable time to replace them 2) their service is critical 3) they took responsibility for providing a service 4) the city did everything right and there is no material need to leave the job I am not surprised by this story being more nuanced. Another even more convoluted case: can all the personnel of a nuclear power plant walk off mid shift with no one to keep it working safely? Some jobs also include taking responsibility of others life, a best effort to keep the service running is not too much of a stretch.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Yes, the nuclear power plant workers can walk off mid shift. Hence the incentive for the employer to provide appropriate compensation and hire sufficient redundant staff. If you want redundancy and reliability, then pay for it. Limiting labor sellers’ freedom is unacceptable, especially when the labor buyers have no such expectations of commitment and can stop buying labor anytime they want. Society cannot have its cake and eat it too. This employer must have been grossly underpaying staff to have a whole team up and leave, especially educated professionals.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Wisconsin had active mandatory public service laws as late as the early 1900s. My understanding is that they are still on the books … but that’s outdated information.
daniel-thompson 5y ago
> Basically getting paid at the same rate rather than an increased rate is repairable harm (by paying money if the nurses win), forcing downtime at their clinic is not. There is "downtime" at the old place either way, since the nurses are not going to show up at the old hospital on Monday anyway. From the TFA: > That means the seven health care workers would not be working at either hospital on Monday.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Steal man/devils advocate here. The judge didn't make the law. They are just communicating it. If you don't like the outcome, vote for politicians that will change the law. Note:I would have to see the court ruling to see what the basis in law is

SllX 5y ago

Can’t steelman an argument that isn’t in front of me, but it’s probably a unique decision to this case that relies on the following alleged facts: 1. Ascension Wisconsin poached 7 of ThedaCare’s staff in a short period of time that were all part of an 11 person team 2. ThedaCare-Neenah is the only Level II Trauma Center in Fox Valley and 3. the people on this team have a set of hard to replace skills that the people of Fox Valley depend on and 4. this is a temporary order, only sufficient time for ThedaCare to find replacements. So the damage you’re worried about being done? I don’t want to discount the damage this might do to the 7 people who tried to change employers, but ThedaCare wants them to stay, working, which means getting paid, for that time, and this is unlikely to realistically affect anyone in a completely different industry and profession. Was it a good or fair call by the judge? Hard to say, but the “this will set a new precedent” types of arguments against an order or decision rarely end up setting the kinds of sustainable precedents people imagine they could.

justin66 5y ago

> Can someone steelman this judges reasoning here for me? I just can’t see it. This seems like insanity to me in at at will state. I assume the judge believes that legislature's intent when making Wisconsin an at-will state was that this state of affairs would never protect individual employees and always be used to protect the interests of employers. I imagine he's right about that, too, although it's a disgusting thought and the employees will eventually prevail.