6 ms·

TL;DR if you're feeling out of the loop: last week, a hospital group in Wisconsin (Thedacare) successfully sued to stop 7 employees from quitting and going to a

TL;DR if you're feeling out of the loop: last week, a hospital group in Wisconsin (Thedacare) successfully sued to stop 7 employees from quitting and going to another hospital (Ascension), essentially forcing them to keep working against their will. The PDF here lays out in painfully hilarious detail why the restraining order was bullshit, and it was duly overturned today. Longer version at NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisconsin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisc...

spuz 5y ago
Thedacare has not successfully sued anyone - a temporary injunction was granted. The injunction does not force the 7 employees to work.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  The economic system forces the employees to work at some location. Their skill set and the timetable make A and B the only reasonable options. The injunction removed A as a possibility. Therefore, the injunction required them to work at B. If an order, taken within the context of how the world works, leads to the employees being forced to work at ThedaCare, then it is an order forcing them to work at ThedaCare.
- nulbyte 5y ago
  Thedacare sued, successfully, in that they successfully initiated legal proceedings and are presently litigating their case. The verb sue means to initiate legal proceedings; it does not mean to prevail at such proceedings.
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    The plain meaning of the term "sued successfully" means you won the lawsuit. That didn't happen. They got a (dubious!) injunction that did not last a single business day. That the judge granted said injunctions is INSANE on the face of it, but to say they "sued successfully" is incorrect.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  ThedaCare's TRO stated that "Ascension make 2 of the employees available to ThedaCare, until their replacements had been found". In other words, they wanted a court order that said that these people be required to work for an employer from whom they had resigned their employment.
ubermonkey 5y ago
Your summary is wrong. The case brought by ThedaCare sought to prevent Ascension from HIRING these people. There's no portion of their claim that attempted to keep the 7 working at ThedaCare; they were just trying to keep them from working at Ascension. There's no provision in WI law that would have allowed ThedaCare to argue these people couldn't leave their jobs. Now, it IS plainly obvious that they were hoping that, by closing this option, they'd continue to work for ThedaCare, but this is ridiculous thinking. Were I one of the 7, I'd work literally ANYWHERE ELSE before given ThedaCare another minute of my time after they pulled this.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Somewhat. The TRO filed by ThedaCare also included a clause that required Ascension to "make available" two of the seven at any time to ThedaCare, to continue providing care at ThedaCare, "until ThedaCare had replaced them", which I feel is going to be a long, slow process, given how thoroughly and comprehensively ThedaCare has trashed its already poor reputation in the nursing community. That's literally indentured servitude. Those employees were being told not only that they couldn't work at an employer of their choosing, but that their resignation was moot - that a lawsuit, that to be clear, named them in no way, shape or form, was able to have as an outcome, be it a TRO, or final order, determining what employer they would work for.
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    It's really unclear by what mechanism they thought any of this would prevail. The attorneys who filed this mess should be sanctioned; it's serious "throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks" garbage.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

spuz 5y ago

Thedacare has not successfully sued anyone - a temporary injunction was granted. The injunction does not force the 7 employees to work.

MereInterest 5y ago
The economic system forces the employees to work at some location. Their skill set and the timetable make A and B the only reasonable options. The injunction removed A as a possibility. Therefore, the injunction required them to work at B. If an order, taken within the context of how the world works, leads to the employees being forced to work at ThedaCare, then it is an order forcing them to work at ThedaCare.
nulbyte 5y ago
Thedacare sued, successfully, in that they successfully initiated legal proceedings and are presently litigating their case. The verb sue means to initiate legal proceedings; it does not mean to prevail at such proceedings.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  The plain meaning of the term "sued successfully" means you won the lawsuit. That didn't happen. They got a (dubious!) injunction that did not last a single business day. That the judge granted said injunctions is INSANE on the face of it, but to say they "sued successfully" is incorrect.
FireBeyond 5y ago
ThedaCare's TRO stated that "Ascension make 2 of the employees available to ThedaCare, until their replacements had been found". In other words, they wanted a court order that said that these people be required to work for an employer from whom they had resigned their employment.

ubermonkey 5y ago

Your summary is wrong. The case brought by ThedaCare sought to prevent Ascension from HIRING these people. There's no portion of their claim that attempted to keep the 7 working at ThedaCare; they were just trying to keep them from working at Ascension. There's no provision in WI law that would have allowed ThedaCare to argue these people couldn't leave their jobs. Now, it IS plainly obvious that they were hoping that, by closing this option, they'd continue to work for ThedaCare, but this is ridiculous thinking. Were I one of the 7, I'd work literally ANYWHERE ELSE before given ThedaCare another minute of my time after they pulled this.

FireBeyond 5y ago
Somewhat. The TRO filed by ThedaCare also included a clause that required Ascension to "make available" two of the seven at any time to ThedaCare, to continue providing care at ThedaCare, "until ThedaCare had replaced them", which I feel is going to be a long, slow process, given how thoroughly and comprehensively ThedaCare has trashed its already poor reputation in the nursing community. That's literally indentured servitude. Those employees were being told not only that they couldn't work at an employer of their choosing, but that their resignation was moot - that a lawsuit, that to be clear, named them in no way, shape or form, was able to have as an outcome, be it a TRO, or final order, determining what employer they would work for.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  It's really unclear by what mechanism they thought any of this would prevail. The attorneys who filed this mess should be sanctioned; it's serious "throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks" garbage.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]