3 ms·

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.

by 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
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    When ones employment can be terminated mid-shift with no warning by management in an at-will employment state, I'd expect that to cut both ways.
    - afiori 5y ago
      > When ones employment can be terminated mid-shift with no warning by management If the management also fires all the safety critical employers and leave the power plant without any workers to keep it safe that is also a crime. This position is quite simple: if X is very very bad then causing X to happen is illegal. whether the fault is the employee or the employers is for a court to decide. But if a city remains without a fire brigade or a nuclear power station without safety critical worker it is someone's fault.
      - vsskanth 5y ago
        > if X is very very bad then causing X to happen is illegal Only if X is loss of life and it happens on-the-job due to motive or negligence, not when they are off the clock or just quit (at-will). > But if a city remains without a fire brigade or a nuclear power station without safety critical worker it is someone's fault. Unless there is a specific contract in place, there's no obligation and AFAIK there's no law to force them either. Happy to be corrected.

by afiori 5y ago

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
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  When ones employment can be terminated mid-shift with no warning by management in an at-will employment state, I'd expect that to cut both ways.
  - afiori 5y ago
    > When ones employment can be terminated mid-shift with no warning by management If the management also fires all the safety critical employers and leave the power plant without any workers to keep it safe that is also a crime. This position is quite simple: if X is very very bad then causing X to happen is illegal. whether the fault is the employee or the employers is for a court to decide. But if a city remains without a fire brigade or a nuclear power station without safety critical worker it is someone's fault.
    - vsskanth 5y ago
      > if X is very very bad then causing X to happen is illegal Only if X is loss of life and it happens on-the-job due to motive or negligence, not when they are off the clock or just quit (at-will). > But if a city remains without a fire brigade or a nuclear power station without safety critical worker it is someone's fault. Unless there is a specific contract in place, there's no obligation and AFAIK there's no law to force them either. Happy to be corrected.