3 ms·

Reading this article, my first reaction is surprise at a ruling that, on the surface, appears to block people from switching jobs. That's weird right? I think

Reading this article, my first reaction is surprise at a ruling that, on the surface, appears to block people from switching jobs. That's weird right? I think most people would be surprised and confused to hear that, because it sounds bad and wrong. My next reaction is curiosity, a desire to know how such a strange ruling could make sense in the mind of the judge. Judges, of course, don't think they are making an obviously incorrect ruling, otherwise they would rule a different way. However, this article makes no attempt unwrap the situation and present the judge's reasons and rationale, and doesn't link to the court documents. I don't think this article benefits from not presenting the rationale. In fact, I think it fails to address the glaringly obvious followup question "that sounds so weird, why did the judge rule that way?"

namelessoracle 5y ago
As medical workers, there failure to be replaced could mean an emergency room has to shut down. (or can't provide radiology services, so no x rays for broken legs) Its my understanding that as a doctor or nurse, you decide that after working 60 hours that week you want to just quit on the spot and try to find a different job due to being overworked you effectively cannot without severe legal consequences ( I dont THINK they can get jail time but they could lose their medical license for sure) unless someone is present to relieve you. I dont AGREE with any of that, but there is some thread of rationale there.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
One can make a hypothetical where such an injunction might make sense. Imagine a sufficiently funded company (like google) wants to buy you or put you out of business. They could intentionally hire your staff and pay them to twiddle their thumbs, and hire your new staff when you replace them until you fold. This strategy of specifically targeting their workforce to put them out of business would be unethical, but I don't know if it runs afoul of business law.

namelessoracle 5y ago

As medical workers, there failure to be replaced could mean an emergency room has to shut down. (or can't provide radiology services, so no x rays for broken legs) Its my understanding that as a doctor or nurse, you decide that after working 60 hours that week you want to just quit on the spot and try to find a different job due to being overworked you effectively cannot without severe legal consequences ( I dont THINK they can get jail time but they could lose their medical license for sure) unless someone is present to relieve you. I dont AGREE with any of that, but there is some thread of rationale there.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

One can make a hypothetical where such an injunction might make sense. Imagine a sufficiently funded company (like google) wants to buy you or put you out of business. They could intentionally hire your staff and pay them to twiddle their thumbs, and hire your new staff when you replace them until you fold. This strategy of specifically targeting their workforce to put them out of business would be unethical, but I don't know if it runs afoul of business law.