Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBAY Green Bay)   Healthcare workers win back the right to work where they want, just like regular people with jobs   (wbay.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Injunction, members of ThedaCare, Judge Mark McGinnis, Restraining order, Ascension Wisconsin, Employment, Dr. Ray Georgen, Outagamie County judge  
•       •       •

3580 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2022 at 11:25 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



61 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-01-24 7:24:43 PM  
If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?
 
2022-01-24 7:36:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?


They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.
 
2022-01-24 8:19:53 PM  
At will employment state. When it suits employers
 
2022-01-24 9:11:44 PM  
You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?
 
2022-01-24 11:28:50 PM  

Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?


Generally you've done something terrible first, and they're in prison and forced to work.

I'm not even sure about that. You may actually be able to decline the chain gang these days.
 
2022-01-24 11:34:52 PM  
Neenah-neenah!

external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-24 11:41:08 PM  
The same judge that granted the temporary injunction (this past Friday?), today voided it.  It wasn't overruled by a higher court or anything like that.  I think he was just saying "Everyone sit your asses down and stay put until we can have a real hearing."  He may be a complete asshole for all I know, but I don't see a huge problem in this case.

/ I have no GED in law, obviously
 
2022-01-24 11:44:43 PM  

Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?


I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.
 
2022-01-24 11:46:11 PM  

Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?


Nobody was forcing the workers to stay; rather, their new employer was given conditions to follow for hiring them (including loaning a couple back to the old employer until the vacancies could be filled). The lawsuit (officially) was about one company allegedly poaching a whole department's worth of talent from a competitor in an industry critical to public health. So, the injunction was about preventing changes to the status quo (like the defendant company officially hiring their new people and initiating tax reporting) until a hearing could take place.

That hearing took place, in which the employees testified that they were not recruited, but chose to leave their old employer on their own volition. So the judge lifted the injunction as it meant the plaintiff didn't have a case.

I'm still not sure the injunction was appropriate, but it wasn't directed at the employees. Corporate poaching isn't necessarily illegal or anything.
 
2022-01-24 11:47:48 PM  

Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?


Preserving the status quo until a hearing can be conducted isn't unusual at all.

In the last thread you seemed to think that the Judge was forcing them to work for ThedaCare, which was never the case. He just said you can't start at Ascension until Monday (today's) hearing.

Also you were outrageously wrong about capitalism in that thread, which has nothing to do with free market conditions. Slap whoever told you that and do it hard. Dig them up if you have to. They have failed you in a horrible way.
 
2022-01-24 11:48:44 PM  

hlehmann: The same judge that granted the temporary injunction (this past Friday?), today voided it.  It wasn't overruled by a higher court or anything like that.  I think he was just saying "Everyone sit your asses down and stay put until we can have a real hearing."  He may be a complete asshole for all I know, but I don't see a huge problem in this case.

/ I have no GED in law, obviously


I fear that this was a "shot across the bow" for workers' rights.

If Amazon (or some equally huge company, like Walmart) decides to test the "at will employment" laws, they have the money to make it happen. And all it takes is ONE successful lawsuit preventing people from quitting a job without the permission of their employer, and this country is SCREWED.

I would like to think that it couldn't happen in this country, but...
 
2022-01-25 12:00:29 AM  
Every Constitutional Amendment that is non-negotiable take two steps forward. Not so fast, Thirteen.
 
2022-01-25 12:05:15 AM  
This is bizarre. I've never even heard of a court weighing in on whether a company is "allowed" to hire employees who already work for a competitor. Where on earth does a court's authority to even consider that question come from?
 
2022-01-25 12:08:01 AM  

Bootleg: hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?

They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.


There are many jobs that are essential to us yet we pay them almost nothing. Look at school teachers. We pay garbage haulers more then we pay the people that we trust to take care of our children. Nurses are needed now. Yet they are treated badly by everyone.
 
2022-01-25 12:09:37 AM  

Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?


Temporary restraining order.  The hospital claimed irreversible damage and the judge let them have a chance to prove their case.  They failed to, the order was lifted.  I don't have a problem with how this went down.

wxboy: That hearing took place, in which the employees testified that they were not recruited, but chose to leave their old employer on their own volition. So the judge lifted the injunction as it meant the plaintiff didn't have a case.

I'm still not sure the injunction was appropriate, but it wasn't directed at the employees. Corporate poaching isn't necessarily illegal or anything.


Taking a whole department would be pretty destructive to a company, deliberately recruiting all of them would be a hostile act I can see being prohibited.  However, in this case it's just a place that didn't want to pay market rates, not poaching.

realmolo: I fear that this was a "shot across the bow" for workers' rights.

If Amazon (or some equally huge company, like Walmart) decides to test the "at will employment" laws, they have the money to make it happen. And all it takes is ONE successful lawsuit preventing people from quitting a job without the permission of their employer, and this country is SCREWED.

I would like to think that it couldn't happen in this country, but...


There was never a ruling saying they couldn't quit.  It was purely a ruling saying they couldn't work for one company until the case was looked at better.
 
2022-01-25 12:17:07 AM  
FTFA: "We will also continue the significant, robust work that is underway to secure a long-term solution..."

Except to pay employees anywhere near their worth, nor make changes to on-call schedules or anything else that they found intolerable.  Well, at least for those employees without an MD or DO after their names.

The employees even gave the former employer a chance to make them a counter-offer to boot!  After being abused by an employer, IMHO, that is extremely gracious on their part.

This.  This right here is a prime example of why my colleagues are running for the exits.  If one employer doesn't value us, we will either find one that will or realize it's all not worth sacrificing our safety & sanity for and quit the profession altogether.  Our biggest "fault" is caring too much about our patients and coworkers, and not wanting to leave them without adequate care/support. . . so we stay longer than we really should. . . but there's a breaking point for everyone.

It's about time the legal gears are turned so that hospitals can bill for nursing care.  It is, after all, one of the primary reasons why hospitals exist.  Who stays in a hospital except those who need nursing care?!  Everyone else is sent home!  C-suite only cares about money coming in, and since nurses are only seen as an expense (don't let all of the flowery platitudes they spew fool you), we are too often considered expendable.

/just finished my MSN
//not going back to inpatient
///still waiting for the docs (as a profession) to get around to meaningfully and consistently supporting the rest of the team
 
2022-01-25 12:17:29 AM  

Loren: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

Temporary restraining order.  The hospital claimed irreversible damage and the judge let them have a chance to prove their case.  They failed to, the order was lifted.  I don't have a problem with how this went down.

wxboy: That hearing took place, in which the employees testified that they were not recruited, but chose to leave their old employer on their own volition. So the judge lifted the injunction as it meant the plaintiff didn't have a case.

I'm still not sure the injunction was appropriate, but it wasn't directed at the employees. Corporate poaching isn't necessarily illegal or anything.

Taking a whole department would be pretty destructive to a company, deliberately recruiting all of them would be a hostile act I can see being prohibited.  However, in this case it's just a place that didn't want to pay market rates, not poaching.

realmolo: I fear that this was a "shot across the bow" for workers' rights.

If Amazon (or some equally huge company, like Walmart) decides to test the "at will employment" laws, they have the money to make it happen. And all it takes is ONE successful lawsuit preventing people from quitting a job without the permission of their employer, and this country is SCREWED.

I would like to think that it couldn't happen in this country, but...

There was never a ruling saying they couldn't quit.  It was purely a ruling saying they couldn't work for one company until the case was looked at better.


That's bullshiat. Saying "you can't work for a competitor" is effectively saying you must work for your current employer or lose insurance/paycheck/etc. The company had a chance to retain the employees, they just didn't want to pay. Hell, they could have negotiated a great rate for the 90 days they claim to need the employees. But instead, they tried to threaten their lively hood to force them to work. There's a word for threaten someone to compel labor.

The initial injunction was bullshiat and the judge should absolutely be castigated for ever entertaining it.
 
2022-01-25 12:21:35 AM  

daffy: Bootleg: hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?

They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.

There are many jobs that are essential to us yet we pay them almost nothing. Look at school teachers. We pay garbage haulers more then we pay the people that we trust to take care of our children. Nurses are needed now. Yet they are treated badly by everyone.


Garbage haulers typically bigger guys with muscles who don't ask/care whether the customer enjoyed the *experience*.

Nurses and teachers, not so much...
 
2022-01-25 12:23:27 AM  

Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?


Suppose person A is working for contract agency B. B finds a job for them at C. A goes to C and works. C pays B, B takes their cut, the rest goes to A and taxes. C would really like to stop paying B, but B set up the deal and doesn't want that. So when B hires A, B requires A sign a non-compete agreement that says A won't go working for companies that B introduced them to, such as C. Or maybe A won't work in that field in that area at all.

There are limits to this that vary by jurisdiction. B would like the non compete agreement to last forever, A and C would like it to not exist or to expire soon after A stops working for B.

I don't know whether this matches the case at hand, but it is one scenario where A is contractually forbidden to work for C. It has happened to me before some years back. I think it expired in 6 months.
 
2022-01-25 1:00:44 AM  
Guess treating employees like disposable cogs comes at a cost.
 
2022-01-25 1:02:59 AM  

LarrySouth: daffy: Bootleg: hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?

They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.

There are many jobs that are essential to us yet we pay them almost nothing. Look at school teachers. We pay garbage haulers more then we pay the people that we trust to take care of our children. Nurses are needed now. Yet they are treated badly by everyone.

Garbage haulers typically bigger guys with muscles who don't ask/care whether the customer enjoyed the *experience*.

Nurses and teachers, not so much...


I like that.
 
2022-01-25 1:04:40 AM  

dark brew: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.


Inb4 the usual crowd come to *explain* how the Great Resignation has nothing to do with pay and that anyone who suggests higher pay as part of the solution is an enemy of the state or something.
 
2022-01-25 1:09:35 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: This is bizarre. I've never even heard of a court weighing in on whether a company is "allowed" to hire employees who already work for a competitor. Where on earth does a court's authority to even consider that question come from?


Same as where they get to decide "suffer irreputable harm"
 
2022-01-25 1:12:39 AM  

hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?


So the administrator can get a bigger bonus by keeping the money as profit.

The same reason MOST nurses are severely underpaid.
 
2022-01-25 1:14:20 AM  

dark brew: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.


Nope.

Hospitals would rather pay nursing agencies $75/hr for agency nurses than pay a staff nurse $40/hr.
 
2022-01-25 1:16:44 AM  
The judge wasted everyone's time with the stupid injunction and put these poor nurses through unnecessary stress.

Even if the lawsuit ultimately found the new employer did something dirty to recruit these people, the answer is to award damages.  The answer is not to hurt the employees.
 
2022-01-25 1:19:40 AM  

Troy McClure: The judge wasted everyone's time with the stupid injunction and put these poor nurses through unnecessary stress.

Even if the lawsuit ultimately found the new employer did something dirty to recruit these people, the answer is to award damages.  The answer is not to hurt the employees.


It's still b.s. even if the new place DID "poach" the nurses

It's capitalism.  They needed an intervention team...offered them substantially better pay and benefits.

The workers gave their current employer a chance to match the offer.  Current employer said no.

End of story.  Free market system at work.
 
2022-01-25 1:28:52 AM  
There is an assumption going on I would like to point out.

They told the judge changing jobs was not just about money but a better quality of life, not being on-call as often working at St. Elizabeth, and feeling appreciated for their work.

They are taking new jobs but why are there so many positions open at Ascension Health if its so great to work there? Will they run into the same idiot type administrators at Ascension. I hope it works out for them and this was an important case but its only a small small step for the working person.
 
2022-01-25 1:30:02 AM  

Smoking GNU: dark brew: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.

Inb4 the usual crowd come to *explain* how the Great Resignation has nothing to do with pay and that anyone who suggests higher pay as part of the solution is an enemy of the state or something.


It wasn't ONLY about the money, it was also about not being on call 24x7. Because the original hospital was a level 2 trauma center they had certain acredidation requirements which included having certain staff available 24x7.

What they did which was stupid was underpay those critical staff AND not hire enough of them to cover a standard rotation schedule. Underpaid plus high stress from constantly being on call sucks, big time (been there). Since the second hospital was willing to pay them more and wasn't a L2 center they could offer them a huge upgrade in quality of life. The leaving staff said, hey if you don't want us to leave either match the salary and hire enough staff to cover a rotation schedule or give us more money to keep the on-call duty, the hospital declined to do either and so lost most of a department which also put their accreditation at risk.

The fact that they thought they had some right to hold onto the staff in an at-will state is just crazy.
 
2022-01-25 1:43:00 AM  

The Official Fark Cajun: Troy McClure: The judge wasted everyone's time with the stupid injunction and put these poor nurses through unnecessary stress.

Even if the lawsuit ultimately found the new employer did something dirty to recruit these people, the answer is to award damages.  The answer is not to hurt the employees.

It's still b.s. even if the new place DID "poach" the nurses

It's capitalism.  They needed an intervention team...offered them substantially better pay and benefits.

The workers gave their current employer a chance to match the offer.  Current employer said no.

End of story.  Free market system at work.


I could invent crazy scenario where the new employer recruited these people after illegally getting ahold of their employment info or something like that, but my point is no matter what wrong the new employer did to the old employer, the solution should never involve taking it out on the nurses.  If something bad was done, the answer is the new employer pays damages to the old employer without involving the nurses.
 
2022-01-25 2:03:36 AM  
At-will employment, how does it work?
 
2022-01-25 2:11:24 AM  

robodog: Smoking GNU: dark brew: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.

Inb4 the usual crowd come to *explain* how the Great Resignation has nothing to do with pay and that anyone who suggests higher pay as part of the solution is an enemy of the state or something.

It wasn't ONLY about the money, it was also about not being on call 24x7. Because the original hospital was a level 2 trauma center they had certain acredidation requirements which included having certain staff available 24x7.

What they did which was stupid was underpay those critical staff AND not hire enough of them to cover a standard rotation schedule. Underpaid plus high stress from constantly being on call sucks, big time (been there). Since the second hospital was willing to pay them more and wasn't a L2 center they could offer them a huge upgrade in quality of life. The leaving staff said, hey if you don't want us to leave either match the salary and hire enough staff to cover a rotation schedule or give us more money to keep the on-call duty, the hospital declined to do either and so lost most of a department which also put their accreditation at risk.

The fact that they thought they had some right to hold onto the staff in an at-will state is just crazy.


I did say higher pay as "part" of the solution, so i see we agree fully here on all points.

And yes they (Theda) were insane for trying this, but the Holy Job Creators have been allowed so much leeway for so long that they are indeed convinced that they are in fact owed your labor with minimal reinbursment or even consideration that they are human and not just a profit-churning automation.
 
2022-01-25 2:27:24 AM  

Thrakkorzog: There is an assumption going on I would like to point out.

They told the judge changing jobs was not just about money but a better quality of life, not being on-call as often working at St. Elizabeth, and feeling appreciated for their work.

They are taking new jobs but why are there so many positions open at Ascension Health if its so great to work there? Will they run into the same idiot type administrators at Ascension. I hope it works out for them and this was an important case but its only a small small step for the working person.


It might be a new department/program that they're starting up. That sort of thing would also make it look suspicious when several people from one place are suddenly jumping to another place all at once. Like this new competitor decided to start up a program specifically to compete against Theda, and then most of Theda's staff immediately jump ship? It's not unreasonable to think that the "victim" (Theda) might think something skeevy is happening, and might choose to try a lawsuit as a last resort (once they rejected matching offers, that is).

The suit was never likely to succeed, as the ruling today showed. But the judge did have to give Theda the chance to make their case in a hearing if he thought there was even the smallest chance they had a point.
 
2022-01-25 4:25:45 AM  
Lol,  the last guy with any long term experience (read: undocumented history) at my employer just quit today in the middle of his shift with a big ole fark this shiat im out and now im up at 4:30 am and wondering if im Next in line for fark this shiat im out.
 
2022-01-25 4:26:33 AM  

wxboy: Thrakkorzog: There is an assumption going on I would like to point out.

They told the judge changing jobs was not just about money but a better quality of life, not being on-call as often working at St. Elizabeth, and feeling appreciated for their work.

They are taking new jobs but why are there so many positions open at Ascension Health if its so great to work there? Will they run into the same idiot type administrators at Ascension. I hope it works out for them and this was an important case but its only a small small step for the working person.

It might be a new department/program that they're starting up. That sort of thing would also make it look suspicious when several people from one place are suddenly jumping to another place all at once. Like this new competitor decided to start up a program specifically to compete against Theda, and then most of Theda's staff immediately jump ship? It's not unreasonable to think that the "victim" (Theda) might think something skeevy is happening, and might choose to try a lawsuit as a last resort (once they rejected matching offers, that is).

The suit was never likely to succeed, as the ruling today showed. But the judge did have to give Theda the chance to make their case in a hearing if he thought there was even the smallest chance they had a point.


Very true. I hadn't thought about the new dept angle at Ascension.
 
2022-01-25 4:36:09 AM  

synithium: Lol,  the last guy with any long term experience (read: undocumented history) at my employer just quit today in the middle of his shift with a big ole fark this shiat im out and now im up at 4:30 am and wondering if im Next in line for fark this shiat im out.


Damn the man.  Always.
 
2022-01-25 5:10:25 AM  

daffy: Bootleg: hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?

They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.

There are many jobs that are essential to us yet we pay them almost nothing. Look at school teachers. We pay garbage haulers more then we pay the people that we trust to take care of our children. Nurses are needed now. Yet they are treated badly by everyone.


That's largely because teachers and nurses (let's face it, women) (and let's face it, women who need and want traditional jobs that come with low barriers to entry and societal security, rather than bigger salaries, so they can pursue marriage and family in a predictable way) will not walk away from jobs that don't pay enough. Garbage hauliers (let's face it, men) will demand better pay and will risk leaving the job if they don't get it.

As the percentage of childfree women rises, we will see this change -- but since nursing and teaching are well on their way to automation, wages won't rise. The jobs just won't be done by humans.
 
2022-01-25 5:18:55 AM  

KB202: but since nursing and teaching are well on their way to automation, wages won't rise


Two of the jobs with the largest shortage of workers in the US are well on their way to automation?  I must have missed Elon Musk advertising a self driving nursebot.
 
2022-01-25 6:56:32 AM  

meat0918: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

Generally you've done something terrible first, and they're in prison and forced to work.

I'm not even sure about that. You may actually be able to decline the chain gang these days.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-25 7:02:24 AM  

dark brew: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.


   Naw they won't learn
 
2022-01-25 7:04:05 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

Preserving the status quo until a hearing can be conducted isn't unusual at all.

In the last thread you seemed to think that the Judge was forcing them to work for ThedaCare, which was never the case. He just said you can't start at Ascension until Monday (today's) hearing.

Also you were outrageously wrong about capitalism in that thread, which has nothing to do with free market conditions. Slap whoever told you that and do it hard. Dig them up if you have to. They have failed you in a horrible way.


 I would blame the news as they left a lot out .     Glad they squared this though.
 
2022-01-25 7:17:39 AM  

dark brew: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

I think the order was that the new company couldn't employ those nurses, so they didn't have to return to their old employer they just couldn't work for the new one.

I hope that stories like this and the ongoing "labor shortage" makes companies realize that taking less profit and paying their employees more is the solution. Capitalism has gone unchecked for far too long and the free market is biting them right in the ass, finally.


They won't learn.

Last Thursday we got an email from our CEO talking about how last year was the most profitable year ever for the company. Highest sales, bigger profits, bigger backlog, etc. All of that was true.

Later on the same day I went to the training for managers on salary planning, where we were told that due to budget constraints senior executives have set cost of living raises would be 0% this year, and merit increases across entire teams could average no higher than 3%. And then they emailed us completely BS corporate "talking points" for how to break this news to our teams given the email earlier THAT VERY DAY about "Best year ever, and it's because of our amazing employees!"

My team is all highly skilled scientists and engineers (as am I) and those talking points will get thrown back in my face (and they should be). My boss and I already had a cynical laugh about how the hell we're going to keep our teams together. What's really going to happen is the best people are going to head for the exit, and I'll be following them (or leading them).

Hope those bonuses and that extra yacht are worth it, Mr. CEO (of course they are, he's fine, he could be fired tomorrow and he'd collect another few tens of millions) because those highest sales ever won't come again with no one to work the programs.
 
2022-01-25 7:35:40 AM  

daffy: Bootleg: hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?

They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.

There are many jobs that are essential to us yet we pay them almost nothing. Look at school teachers. We pay garbage haulers more then we pay the people that we trust to take care of our children. Nurses are needed now. Yet they are treated badly by everyone.


Both garbage haulers and day care teachers get trash out of my house.  The daycare teachers just send them back in the evening.
 
2022-01-25 7:36:46 AM  

The Official Fark Cajun: Troy McClure: The judge wasted everyone's time with the stupid injunction and put these poor nurses through unnecessary stress.

Even if the lawsuit ultimately found the new employer did something dirty to recruit these people, the answer is to award damages.  The answer is not to hurt the employees.

It's still b.s. even if the new place DID "poach" the nurses

It's capitalism.  They needed an intervention team...offered them substantially better pay and benefits.

The workers gave their current employer a chance to match the offer.  Current employer said no.

End of story.  Free market system at work.


pimp smacked by the invisible hand.
 
2022-01-25 7:45:29 AM  

LarrySouth: Garbage haulers typically bigger guys with muscles who don't ask/care whether the customer enjoyed the *experience*.

Nurses and teachers, not so much...


Then, you have not seen/worked for the garbage company that does our little neighborhood. These entitled Cruellas will walk right out and lay right into the garbage people. They then call the office and chew out the dispatcher. And, in typical fashion, the company will usually bow to the complainer. They don't necessarily fire anyone, but to discipline someone because they did not place the empty bins back just so is pretty much insane. (Remember that they use an arm on the truck to pick up and replace the bins, to expect someone to sit there and waggle a bin to get it just right is crazy. But, I live near two people who routinely do it.)

I also hate to break it to you, but the nurses and teachers don't care a much as you might think. Especially now that they see just how entitled our society has become in regards to their efforts.

FTFA:"I think there was maybe a thought that they were about to get into a bidding war and decided that would not be in the best interest of our other employees," said Lynn Detterman, ThedaCare Regional Medical Center-Neenah president and ThedaCare South Region senior vice president.

Yeah, I bet it wouldn't. Number one thing about employers... they do not want you to know what anyone else makes. That would lead to discovering that the company is really screwing some folks by letting them undercut themselves during negotiations. Which leads to better negotiations from the worker side. Can't have that!
 
2022-01-25 7:46:56 AM  
"I think there was maybe a thought that they were about to get into a bidding war and decided that would not be in the best interest of our other employees," -- said official from the cheap hospital

All I wanted was a Pepsi.
 
TWX
2022-01-25 7:48:58 AM  

daffy: Bootleg: hardinparamedic: If they were so important, why didn't you pay them and treat them better?

They could do that, or they can just sue to stop them from leaving.

There are many jobs that are essential to us yet we pay them almost nothing. Look at school teachers. We pay garbage haulers more then we pay the people that we trust to take care of our children. Nurses are needed now. Yet they are treated badly by everyone.


This is only true when one considers the 25 year experienced municipal worker who's seen numerous salary-step increases when compared against the new teacher within the first couple of years of employment.

RNs are paid, year for year of experience, considerably more than either.  I am guessing, but LPNs are likely paid more like teachers, and other healthcare workers without even LPN training more like garbage truck drivers.
 
TWX
2022-01-25 7:54:31 AM  

Loren: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

Temporary restraining order.  The hospital claimed irreversible damage and the judge let them have a chance to prove their case.  They failed to, the order was lifted.  I don't have a problem with how this went down.


I do.  If the old employer couldn't produce contracts of employment with terms governing noncompetes then the old employer couldn't show any standing, nevermind 'poaching' workers through offering better compensation isn't a crime.  Injunction never should have been imposed to begin with, old employer should have been laughed out of court.

Any claims about hardship are red herrings.
 
TWX
2022-01-25 7:57:37 AM  

bsmz: Lsherm: You know, in the last thread, no one explained how the judge's order was legal in the first place. And I'm still clueless how an employer can force someone to work for them. Anyone?

Suppose person A is working for contract agency B. B finds a job for them at C. A goes to C and works. C pays B, B takes their cut, the rest goes to A and taxes. C would really like to stop paying B, but B set up the deal and doesn't want that. So when B hires A, B requires A sign a non-compete agreement that says A won't go working for companies that B introduced them to, such as C. Or maybe A won't work in that field in that area at all.

There are limits to this that vary by jurisdiction. B would like the non compete agreement to last forever, A and C would like it to not exist or to expire soon after A stops working for B.

I don't know whether this matches the case at hand, but it is one scenario where A is contractually forbidden to work for C. It has happened to me before some years back. I think it expired in 6 months.


No one had contracts, and this is a right-to-work state. Employment was at-will.  And the plaintiff wasn't suing the workers, the plaintiff was suing the new employer, which they almost certainly didn't have any sort of contract with.
 
TWX
2022-01-25 8:04:23 AM  

wxboy: The suit was never likely to succeed, as the ruling today showed. But the judge did have to give Theda the chance to make their case in a hearing if he thought there was even the smallest chance they had a point.


No. The injunction shouldn't have been issued without the plaintiff producing signed employment contracts with noncompete clauses that are legally binding in that state with its at-will laws, and even then, only when suing the employees themselves.

The other employer is not a party to this.  Sub-out the workers leaving for any other reason, it's still a right-to-work state.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.