4 ms·

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

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.
      - NiDav 5y ago
    - 5y ago
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.

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.
    - NiDav 5y ago
  - 5y ago

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.