5 ms·

The TRO was an order to Ascension, not to the seven former employees of Thedacare. It did not compel the seven former employees to continue working at Thedacar

The TRO was an order to Ascension, not to the seven former employees of Thedacare. It did not compel the seven former employees to continue working at Thedacare; instead, it blocked Ascension from hiring them until after Thedacare had hired their replacements. See: https://www.wbay.com/2022/01/20/thedacare-seeks-court-order-against-ascension-wisconsin-worker-dispute/ https://www.wbay.com/2022/01/20/thedacare-seeks-court-order-...

hmottestad 5y ago
Does this mean that the seven former employees of Thedacare didn't have to go back to work for Thedacare in the interim? If that was the case, then why was the injunction granted in the first place? Was it due to some suspicion of anticompetitive behaviour? It doesn't seem that it was an attempt at helping the public keep their access to important medical care, which was the tune that Thedacare was playing for the press.
- hmottestad 5y ago
  A case could be made for anticompetitive behaviour if a big company hired all the key personell from a small company in order to run them out of business so they wouldn't have to compete against them in the future. Especially if the big company overpaid for the employees, or had the intention of letting them go once the small company was bankrupt.
- bewaretheirs 5y ago
  That's what Ascension said in their brief: "Nothing that happens in the remainder of this case, regardless of the Court’s decision on this motion, can force those employees to return to ThedaCare to labor against their will. So the only equitable remedy available to the Court is an injunction prohibiting these employees from serving trauma patients at Ascension."
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  The TRO absolutely tried to require this, that at least some of those employees would be required to be available to Thedacare. Ascension pushed this heavily in their response - that this was akin to indentured servitude: resigning from an employer in an at-will state, only to have your employer "compel" you to not leave (be it directly, or through your new employer). There was zero threat to access to medical care (which, still, is not the problem of those employees) - both hospitals shared the same radiologists, and some other staff. The same care was available to patients, just at a different hospital, a mere few miles away (and indeed, there's significant evidence to show that even Thedacare's ability to provide interventional radiology wasn't compromised, in that they did not transfer a single patient out of that hospital for IR care elsewhere in the entire timeframe).
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  As I understand it, their decision was between working for Thedacare or being jobless.
- pnutjam 5y ago
  I read that the ordered vacating the injunction compelled Thedacare to pay them for Monday at the new Ascension pay rate.
monkeybutton 5y ago
They may not be compelled to continue working for Thedacare but removing their alternatives when they still have bills to pay is certainly coercive.
FireBeyond 5y ago
Not quite. One of the claims on the granted TRO was that Ascension "make 2 personnel available to Thedacare" for a similar timeline, until replacements had been hired. That is insane. They were blocked from working at Ascension, but in addition, as employees of Ascension, two would have been required to keep working at an employer they had resigned from, until Thedacare had deigned to find replacements (and who knows how long that would take, as they have comprehensively destroyed a lot of their recruitability - significantly below market salaries, a competitor nearby who is willing to pay more, a willingness to make their employees pawns in a bigger game for corporate revenue, etc.).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It sounds like the 2 personal don't come come from the pool of 7. You can't make workers available that you are also barred from hiring.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    Not so. > McGinnis had issued a temporary restraining order Friday that required Ascension to do one of two things: Either make available to ThedaCare one invasive radiology technician and one registered nurse from the departing team or cease hiring any of the employees until ThedaCare has hired adequate staff to replace them. Source: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-lifts-order-barring-7-health-workers-from-jumping-to-new-hospital https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-lifts-order-ba... And confirmed by the court documents themselves: > IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ascension NE Wisconsin, Inc. shall either: 1. Make available to ThedaCare one invasive radiology technician and one registered nurse of the individuals resigning their employment with ThedaCare to join Ascension (Amber Kohler, Andrew Kohler, Samantha Baltus, Timothy Breister, Kailey Young, Michael Preissner, and Paul Winter) It went on to say essentially, "if you do keep them in your employment, they are available to ThedaCare, or you don't hire them".
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      oh, interesting. I read your info as being an additive clause, not an alternative.
himinlomax 5y ago
That's not exactly correct, from what I understand the TRO was not put in place "until after Thedacare had hired replacements", it was put in place until the court could have a hearing. The court did, just a couple days later, and promptly removed the order. They sort of had to issue it in the first place because Thedacare made a claim that grave harm could happen to the community. It turns out it was bullshit, but they had to hear them out to decide. (Note that I'm being charitable, not defending the principle of the thing.)

hmottestad 5y ago

Does this mean that the seven former employees of Thedacare didn't have to go back to work for Thedacare in the interim? If that was the case, then why was the injunction granted in the first place? Was it due to some suspicion of anticompetitive behaviour? It doesn't seem that it was an attempt at helping the public keep their access to important medical care, which was the tune that Thedacare was playing for the press.

hmottestad 5y ago
A case could be made for anticompetitive behaviour if a big company hired all the key personell from a small company in order to run them out of business so they wouldn't have to compete against them in the future. Especially if the big company overpaid for the employees, or had the intention of letting them go once the small company was bankrupt.
bewaretheirs 5y ago
That's what Ascension said in their brief: "Nothing that happens in the remainder of this case, regardless of the Court’s decision on this motion, can force those employees to return to ThedaCare to labor against their will. So the only equitable remedy available to the Court is an injunction prohibiting these employees from serving trauma patients at Ascension."
FireBeyond 5y ago
The TRO absolutely tried to require this, that at least some of those employees would be required to be available to Thedacare. Ascension pushed this heavily in their response - that this was akin to indentured servitude: resigning from an employer in an at-will state, only to have your employer "compel" you to not leave (be it directly, or through your new employer). There was zero threat to access to medical care (which, still, is not the problem of those employees) - both hospitals shared the same radiologists, and some other staff. The same care was available to patients, just at a different hospital, a mere few miles away (and indeed, there's significant evidence to show that even Thedacare's ability to provide interventional radiology wasn't compromised, in that they did not transfer a single patient out of that hospital for IR care elsewhere in the entire timeframe).
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
As I understand it, their decision was between working for Thedacare or being jobless.
pnutjam 5y ago
I read that the ordered vacating the injunction compelled Thedacare to pay them for Monday at the new Ascension pay rate.

monkeybutton 5y ago

They may not be compelled to continue working for Thedacare but removing their alternatives when they still have bills to pay is certainly coercive.

FireBeyond 5y ago

Not quite. One of the claims on the granted TRO was that Ascension "make 2 personnel available to Thedacare" for a similar timeline, until replacements had been hired. That is insane. They were blocked from working at Ascension, but in addition, as employees of Ascension, two would have been required to keep working at an employer they had resigned from, until Thedacare had deigned to find replacements (and who knows how long that would take, as they have comprehensively destroyed a lot of their recruitability - significantly below market salaries, a competitor nearby who is willing to pay more, a willingness to make their employees pawns in a bigger game for corporate revenue, etc.).

s1artibartfast 5y ago
It sounds like the 2 personal don't come come from the pool of 7. You can't make workers available that you are also barred from hiring.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Not so. > McGinnis had issued a temporary restraining order Friday that required Ascension to do one of two things: Either make available to ThedaCare one invasive radiology technician and one registered nurse from the departing team or cease hiring any of the employees until ThedaCare has hired adequate staff to replace them. Source: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-lifts-order-barring-7-health-workers-from-jumping-to-new-hospital https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-lifts-order-ba... And confirmed by the court documents themselves: > IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ascension NE Wisconsin, Inc. shall either: 1. Make available to ThedaCare one invasive radiology technician and one registered nurse of the individuals resigning their employment with ThedaCare to join Ascension (Amber Kohler, Andrew Kohler, Samantha Baltus, Timothy Breister, Kailey Young, Michael Preissner, and Paul Winter) It went on to say essentially, "if you do keep them in your employment, they are available to ThedaCare, or you don't hire them".
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    oh, interesting. I read your info as being an additive clause, not an alternative.

himinlomax 5y ago

That's not exactly correct, from what I understand the TRO was not put in place "until after Thedacare had hired replacements", it was put in place until the court could have a hearing. The court did, just a couple days later, and promptly removed the order. They sort of had to issue it in the first place because Thedacare made a claim that grave harm could happen to the community. It turns out it was bullshit, but they had to hear them out to decide. (Note that I'm being charitable, not defending the principle of the thing.)