3 ms·

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

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