5 ms·

I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other o

I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ?

tablespoon 5y ago
> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ? These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  How is it any different than if they just didn't show up because they rage quit and took jobs in a different industry?
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
  And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >>> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ? >> These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care. > And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get. My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, because there could literally be an innocent man down the hall who's suffering because of your immediate actions. That's not a man you should stick it to. It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. Imagine these scenarios: A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some patient who's laying in his own piss and shit, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him a bedpan. or A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some who dies because he didn't get his medication, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him his medication. vs. A GameStop clerk "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from a customer who wants to buy a videogame but can't.
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >> It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. > Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. > If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book. This is exactly the kind of premature analysis stoppage I was talking about (i.e. thinking like the only thing that matters is your relationship to your employer, and everything else can be ignored). It's not a recipe for doing the right thing, it's a recipe for being a self-righteous asshole who could do a lot of harm.
        Jcowell 5y ago
        Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil. Slave? Good? Evil? The rhetoric in this thread is over the top and way too melodramatic. "Valiant nurse Skywalker struck a blow against the EVIL Empire by letting the sick ewok Wicket wallow in his own shit. He could help Wicket, but that would be SLAVERY, so he BECAME THE BEARER OF GOOD by watching Wicket suffer and reading a magazine instead of helping him." Let me put it this way: It's more evil to sit there and watch some patient suffer without helping them than whatever evil you're so concerned with here. However, I totally get that it may be difficult for some software engineers (whose jobs typically have no more moral significance or responsibility than a GameStop clerk's), to understand that not every situation is like their own.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nwallin 5y ago
  It's the hospital's responsibility to ensure patients get adequate care, not the ex-employees of the hospital. The hospital can ensure patients get adequate care by attracting additional workers with sufficient compensation, retaining sufficient workers by offering them adequate compensation, and punish inadequate workers by firing them. The hospital in question seems to be willing to do none of these things.
namelessoracle 5y ago
No, as medical workers they have a duty to provide care if they show up to work. They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do).
- nwallin 5y ago
  > They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do). Hold on. They've quit. The hospital has taken them to court and obtained a legal injunction preventing them from quitting. Now you're suggesting that the hospital threaten to fire them? That's the point of quitting. It's like if a six year old is throwing a tantrum because they want a cookie and you threaten to give them a cookie unless they stop throwing a tantrum.

I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ?

tablespoon 5y ago

> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ? These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
How is it any different than if they just didn't show up because they rage quit and took jobs in a different industry?
HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >>> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ? >> These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care. > And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get. My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, because there could literally be an innocent man down the hall who's suffering because of your immediate actions. That's not a man you should stick it to. It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. Imagine these scenarios: A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some patient who's laying in his own piss and shit, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him a bedpan. or A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some who dies because he didn't get his medication, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him his medication. vs. A GameStop clerk "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from a customer who wants to buy a videogame but can't.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >> It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. > Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. > If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book. This is exactly the kind of premature analysis stoppage I was talking about (i.e. thinking like the only thing that matters is your relationship to your employer, and everything else can be ignored). It's not a recipe for doing the right thing, it's a recipe for being a self-righteous asshole who could do a lot of harm.
      - Jcowell 5y ago
        Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil. Slave? Good? Evil? The rhetoric in this thread is over the top and way too melodramatic. "Valiant nurse Skywalker struck a blow against the EVIL Empire by letting the sick ewok Wicket wallow in his own shit. He could help Wicket, but that would be SLAVERY, so he BECAME THE BEARER OF GOOD by watching Wicket suffer and reading a magazine instead of helping him." Let me put it this way: It's more evil to sit there and watch some patient suffer without helping them than whatever evil you're so concerned with here. However, I totally get that it may be difficult for some software engineers (whose jobs typically have no more moral significance or responsibility than a GameStop clerk's), to understand that not every situation is like their own.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nwallin 5y ago
It's the hospital's responsibility to ensure patients get adequate care, not the ex-employees of the hospital. The hospital can ensure patients get adequate care by attracting additional workers with sufficient compensation, retaining sufficient workers by offering them adequate compensation, and punish inadequate workers by firing them. The hospital in question seems to be willing to do none of these things.

namelessoracle 5y ago

No, as medical workers they have a duty to provide care if they show up to work. They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do).

nwallin 5y ago
> They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do). Hold on. They've quit. The hospital has taken them to court and obtained a legal injunction preventing them from quitting. Now you're suggesting that the hospital threaten to fire them? That's the point of quitting. It's like if a six year old is throwing a tantrum because they want a cookie and you threaten to give them a cookie unless they stop throwing a tantrum.