3 ms·

This blogspam headline is misleading and mischaracterizes what’s happening. The workers certainly can switch jobs, but they (temporarily) can’t go to work for a

This blogspam headline is misleading and mischaracterizes what’s happening. The workers certainly can switch jobs, but they (temporarily) can’t go to work for a specific provider being accused of unlawfully poaching them. The actual article being cribbed from: https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2022/01/21/what-we-know-ascension-thedacare-court-battle-over-employees/6607417001/ https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2022/01/21/what-we-k... (Note: I have no knowledge of or opinion about the law itself, I don't know WI labor law, and the filings aren't linked from the article; so I can't evaluate the legal merits of the case.)

zamadatix 5y ago
I don't think they are even claiming they were "unlawfully poached" (which is an extremely high legal bar for at will employees without a non-compete contract) just that they are seeking 90 more days to find replacements which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/health/2022/01/20/thedacare-ascension-go-court-over-stroke-trauma-employee-hires/6595232001/ https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/health/2022/01/20/th...
- ehutch79 5y ago
  The judge can't force them to work for the original provider. That'd be slavery.
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    Not de jure but he can de facto. If you have bills to pay and a family to support, you can't just quit a job without another income stream set up.
    - evgen 5y ago
      Yeah, but when you become internet famous in certain circles then the income stream appears. Within hours of this hitting various sub-reddits a gufundme was in place (https://www.gofundme.com/f/thedacare-exemployee-support-fund?qid=aa789870144c2da5f66211913e8c01b4 https://www.gofundme.com/f/thedacare-exemployee-support-fund...) and has pulled in almost 60K to cover these workers for the period in which they will not be working for their former employer, just in case the order is not overturned in the next 24 hours.
      - namelessoracle 5y ago
        60k doesnt cover their loss though. Not for 7 people, who all have professional salaries and expenses. Who likely dont have another job opportunity for same profession without uprooting their lives other than the other job they tried to take. (how many radiology labs are actively hiring 7 people in any city at a moment?) It may cover it for a month. Where they have to hope that they can one day work for this new company (if the judge allows it, and judges will often dig their heels in and drag things out if they get caught out like this). Or they can keep doing what they are doing now. What do normal people with kids and mortgages choose?
        zamadatix 5y ago
        Even assuming no more money comes in and the judge's order stands in a month there would be nothing preventing them from going to work at ThedaCare again at such a point instead of doing so immediately. After all the lawsuit is literally to try to keep them from leaving not actually about where it is they are going to. My guess is the money they'll get will actually outlive the order anyways though, but there is no risk if it doesn't.
  - polski-g 5y ago
    America is a system of judicial supremacy. Judges can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. If you complain, they can hold you in contempt of court and jail you indefinitely. I can't even remember the last time a judge was actually impeached.
    - bediger4000 5y ago
      This is true, and it's why Republicans spent the last 40 years getting the federal courts, and then the Supreme Court loaded with partisan ideologues. For example, proposed laws to limit abortions fail in a lot of places: the majority of the population favors access to abortions. The Republicans got a Supreme Court that will judicially do what would be legislative suicide. There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > For example, proposed laws to limit abortions fail in a lot of places: the majority of the population favors access to abortions. The Republicans got a Supreme Court that will judicially do what would be legislative suicide. It's more complicated than that. You certainly have states where the majority of the population doesn't favor abortion access or doesn't care that much, and all any conceivable Supreme Court decision will do is allow the state legislators in those areas to legislate in ways the local population accepts, which won't be political suicide for them. That much is a fact, because restricting abortion access (regardless if it stands or not) has been a winning issue for those legislators for a decade or more. > There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially. What you say would be true if the US was a "unitary" government, with non-geographic elections (e.g. by party list), but that's just not how it's structured.
        5y ago
namelessoracle 5y ago
Didnt they get the injunction literally a few days before they were supposed to start? After the workers gave reasonable notice and invited a counter offer? Why didnt they get the injunction immediately? How can a worker be "unlawfully poached" again? Non competes are illegal in the vast majority of cases without consideration involved.
belval 5y ago
> The workers certainly can switch jobs, but they (temporarily) can’t go to work for a specific provider being accused of unlawfully poaching them. This make me angry, why is there a law that prevents individuals from going to work for a competitor offering what is probably better pay and advantages? They are not slaves, they should be able to just leave and not look back. Why do you need a law against poaching employees? Maybe try paying them more so they won't be interested in jumping ship? The level of mental gymnastics used here is offensive.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  The word “poach” itself is problematic and insulting, and we should not use it. As a worker, I am not some deer or other wild game, being “stolen” from the land of a feudal lord. I have agency and may voluntarily switch among employers as I wish. “Poached” implies ownership that doesn’t exist.
  - belval 5y ago
    Exactly, work is basically trading your time for money, if someone is paying more for your time you switch and that's it. The idea that your current employer is somehow entitled to your loyalty is already a ridiculous concept, but having the courts enforce it is insulting.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I would save or redirect the anger, it is unclear if any such law even exists.
pseudo0 5y ago
How does the original hospital even have a leg to stand on? I didn't realize that it was even possible to "unlawfully poach" an employee.

zamadatix 5y ago

I don't think they are even claiming they were "unlawfully poached" (which is an extremely high legal bar for at will employees without a non-compete contract) just that they are seeking 90 more days to find replacements which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/health/2022/01/20/thedacare-ascension-go-court-over-stroke-trauma-employee-hires/6595232001/ https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/health/2022/01/20/th...

ehutch79 5y ago
The judge can't force them to work for the original provider. That'd be slavery.
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  Not de jure but he can de facto. If you have bills to pay and a family to support, you can't just quit a job without another income stream set up.
  - evgen 5y ago
    Yeah, but when you become internet famous in certain circles then the income stream appears. Within hours of this hitting various sub-reddits a gufundme was in place (https://www.gofundme.com/f/thedacare-exemployee-support-fund?qid=aa789870144c2da5f66211913e8c01b4 https://www.gofundme.com/f/thedacare-exemployee-support-fund...) and has pulled in almost 60K to cover these workers for the period in which they will not be working for their former employer, just in case the order is not overturned in the next 24 hours.
    - namelessoracle 5y ago
      60k doesnt cover their loss though. Not for 7 people, who all have professional salaries and expenses. Who likely dont have another job opportunity for same profession without uprooting their lives other than the other job they tried to take. (how many radiology labs are actively hiring 7 people in any city at a moment?) It may cover it for a month. Where they have to hope that they can one day work for this new company (if the judge allows it, and judges will often dig their heels in and drag things out if they get caught out like this). Or they can keep doing what they are doing now. What do normal people with kids and mortgages choose?
      - zamadatix 5y ago
        Even assuming no more money comes in and the judge's order stands in a month there would be nothing preventing them from going to work at ThedaCare again at such a point instead of doing so immediately. After all the lawsuit is literally to try to keep them from leaving not actually about where it is they are going to. My guess is the money they'll get will actually outlive the order anyways though, but there is no risk if it doesn't.
- polski-g 5y ago
  America is a system of judicial supremacy. Judges can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. If you complain, they can hold you in contempt of court and jail you indefinitely. I can't even remember the last time a judge was actually impeached.
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    This is true, and it's why Republicans spent the last 40 years getting the federal courts, and then the Supreme Court loaded with partisan ideologues. For example, proposed laws to limit abortions fail in a lot of places: the majority of the population favors access to abortions. The Republicans got a Supreme Court that will judicially do what would be legislative suicide. There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > For example, proposed laws to limit abortions fail in a lot of places: the majority of the population favors access to abortions. The Republicans got a Supreme Court that will judicially do what would be legislative suicide. It's more complicated than that. You certainly have states where the majority of the population doesn't favor abortion access or doesn't care that much, and all any conceivable Supreme Court decision will do is allow the state legislators in those areas to legislate in ways the local population accepts, which won't be political suicide for them. That much is a fact, because restricting abortion access (regardless if it stands or not) has been a winning issue for those legislators for a decade or more. > There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially. What you say would be true if the US was a "unitary" government, with non-geographic elections (e.g. by party list), but that's just not how it's structured.
      - 5y ago

namelessoracle 5y ago

Didnt they get the injunction literally a few days before they were supposed to start? After the workers gave reasonable notice and invited a counter offer? Why didnt they get the injunction immediately? How can a worker be "unlawfully poached" again? Non competes are illegal in the vast majority of cases without consideration involved.

belval 5y ago

> The workers certainly can switch jobs, but they (temporarily) can’t go to work for a specific provider being accused of unlawfully poaching them. This make me angry, why is there a law that prevents individuals from going to work for a competitor offering what is probably better pay and advantages? They are not slaves, they should be able to just leave and not look back. Why do you need a law against poaching employees? Maybe try paying them more so they won't be interested in jumping ship? The level of mental gymnastics used here is offensive.

ryandrake 5y ago
The word “poach” itself is problematic and insulting, and we should not use it. As a worker, I am not some deer or other wild game, being “stolen” from the land of a feudal lord. I have agency and may voluntarily switch among employers as I wish. “Poached” implies ownership that doesn’t exist.
- belval 5y ago
  Exactly, work is basically trading your time for money, if someone is paying more for your time you switch and that's it. The idea that your current employer is somehow entitled to your loyalty is already a ridiculous concept, but having the courts enforce it is insulting.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I would save or redirect the anger, it is unclear if any such law even exists.

pseudo0 5y ago

How does the original hospital even have a leg to stand on? I didn't realize that it was even possible to "unlawfully poach" an employee.