Recent PostsForum Rules
Next Topic Sign In to ReplyPrev Topic
FirstPrev12NextLast
Health Care Employee Slavery
1. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 8:37AM EST
Hospital Sues At-Will Workers for Getting Better Jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE5mV5V-pHs

Quote:
NEENAH, Wis. (WFRV) – ThedaCare is trying to get a court order to temporarily keep some of its employees from leaving to Ascension, after Ascension hired a ‘majority’ of its 11-member interventional radiology and cardiovascular team.

ThedaCare announced that they have filed for a temporary injunction in Outagamie County Circuit Court against Ascension Wisconsin. They are asking the Court to provide time for ThedaCare to replace most of its 11-member interventional radiology and cardiovascular team of nurses and technicians. ThedaCare says they were recruited by and have accepted jobs at Ascension Northeast Wisconsin.
2. Author: Speyside2Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 9:39AM EST
The judge who issued the temporary restraining order should be dealt with as severely as is legally possible. Telling anyone they cannot change employers is unacceptable. ThedaCare should be sued by the 7 people this affects. If ThedaCare did not want to match the offers, which they were offered to, why can't someone accept a new job?
3. Author: MACSDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 9:46AM EST
Shame on ya'll for questioning the benevolent overlords!!
4. Author: bgzDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 9:46AM EST
I disagree with you. Second party comes in and poaches an entire team of your people and cripples an entire piece of your business...

They should be liable for that... that's malicious with intent to cause harm... especially in the medical industry.
5. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 10:08AM EST
bgz wrote:
I disagree with you. Second party comes in and poaches an entire team of your people and cripples an entire piece of your business...

They should be liable for that... that's malicious with intent to cause harm... especially in the medical industry.


What law are they breaking? The "blame" is on the original company for not paying market wages.

Right to work works in two directions, employers can fire at will and employees can leave at will.

In this case the employees are not getting paid and caught in legal limbo.
6. Author: rfenstDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 10:17AM EST
Ah, the intersection of public interest law vs. medical employment law vs. contract law vs. civil procedure law vs. hospital competition!
7. Author: RayRDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 10:17AM EST
bgz wrote:
I disagree with you. Second party comes in and poaches an entire team of your people and cripples an entire piece of your business...

They should be liable for that... that's malicious with intent to cause harm... especially in the medical industry.


You must believe in SLAVERY!
8. Author: Stogie1020Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 12:04PM EST
10:1 these employees had a non-solicitation clause in their employment agreements and the first one to jump ship violated it by calling the other ones and saying "come with meeeeeeee!". Then they all got toether and conspired as to when they would leave so as to cause the least suspicion, and a few likely took some pads of sticky-notes or pens with them.
9. Author: rfenstDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 12:05PM EST
If anyone wants to read the actual court lawsuit, memos and order, here is the link:

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2022CV000068&countyNo=44&index=0




Addendum: The link only takes you to the court summaries of the case filings, hearing times and such, but not the original documents, which are only open to the public for in-person viewing. I called the clerk of court and was told this. That's NOT transparent public records in this day and age...
10. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 12:29PM EST
Stogie1020 wrote:
10:1 these employees had a non-solicitation clause in their employment agreements and the first one to jump ship violated it by calling the other ones and saying "come with meeeeeeee!". Then they all got toether and conspired as to when they would leave so as to cause the least suspicion, and a few likely took some pads of sticky-notes or pens with them.


Interesting point, but the suit is against their original employer, the employees are caught in the middle.
11. Author: Speyside2Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 1:13PM EST
One could also make the point if the industry standard in non competes, that could be viewed as collusion.
12. Author: rfenstDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 2:16PM EST
Temporary Emergency complaints/petitions/motions rarely get heard at all on an emergency basis. I have never seen one other than in domestic abuse and family law where life or safety could be at stake. After watching Gene's link, reading a few newspaper articles and reviewing the court's actual publicly available summary reports, I do not see anything legally wrong with the TRO/Injunction because of the rapid timeline of the case (the very next court day) for the following reasons:

What about the public interest issue of making sure the public's need for highly specialized emergency stroke care is fully available on day-one? Is the new employer 100% fully ready to go on day-one? Are the neurologists and neurosurgeons and other medical specialists in the community ready to go 100% on day-one? Are the ambulance and rescue personal ready to go on day-one? Does everyone who needs to know know, etc., etc.... These, I truly believe are legitimate concerns.

I ask these questions because one of two competing hospital chains in Orlando is a center of excellence for interventional stroke management and the other **sucks royal** for it- as well as neurology and neurosurgery. I would only go to the first hospital if I or a loved one was stroking out and had any choice. If not and it wouldn't create additional risk, I would transfer hospitals ASAP.

A TRO's legal standard is basically decided upon whether: Whether everything in the lawsuit plead is assumed to be true and it appears there could be a definite emergency leading to irrevocable harm. It does **not*** take actual proof of facts or even testimony to the true facts. Once a TRO is granted, the court **must** have a quick, later, factual hearing with both sides present and with both sides having the opportunity to be equally prepared. Evidence and arguments are presented (documents, testimony, statutes and case law) so the judge can fairly and formally decide whether the TRO should be made permanent, extended only for a definite period of time (short or long) or lifted completely (dissolved)(reversed).

The court papers were filed on Thursday. The emergency hearing was the next day. The emergency order only lasts through today's all encompassing emergency morning court hearing scheduled for today, which could already have been completed this very morning. This hearing and its timing would be any judge's very first priority under the law right now to the exclusion of any other allegedly important matters (even if a trial was a trial scheduled for today that was set five years ago for that day). Thedacare probably had to post a large bond as required by most TRO's.

I believe the employees **will be legally required to timely be paid** by Thedacare. More important, I hope as many of them worked or were on call just for this weekend at Thedacare- for the public good.

I also believe that Thedacare is WRONG. This could have all been prevented with employment contracts and agreed upon non-competes on how close (distance) the employees could work for usually one to three years after voluntarily leaving (as opposed to being fired).

More thoughts to come...
13. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 3:10PM EST
rfenst wrote:
Temporary Emergency complaints/petitions/motions rarely get heard at all on an emergency basis. I have never seen one other than in domestic abuse and family law where life or safety could be at stake. After watching Gene's link, reading a few newspaper articles and reviewing the court's actual publicly available summary reports, I do not see anything legally wrong with the TRO/Injunction because of the rapid timeline of the case (the very next court day) for the following reasons:

What about the public interest issue of making sure the public's need for highly specialized emergency stroke care is fully available on day-one? Is the new employer 100% fully ready to go on day-one? Are the neurologists and neurosurgeons and other medical specialists in the community ready to go 100% on day-one? Are the ambulance and rescue personal ready to go on day-one? Does everyone who needs to know know, etc., etc.... These, I truly believe are legitimate concerns.

I ask these questions because one of two competing hospital chains in Orlando is a center of excellence for interventional stroke management and the other **sucks royal** for it- as well as neurology and neurosurgery. I would only go to the first hospital if I or a loved one was stroking out and had any choice. If not and it wouldn't create additional risk, I would transfer hospitals ASAP.

A TRO's legal standard is basically decided upon whether: Whether everything in the lawsuit plead is assumed to be true and it appears there could be a definite emergency leading to irrevocable harm. It does **not*** take actual proof of facts or even testimony to the true facts. Once a TRO is granted, the court **must** have a quick, later, factual hearing with both sides present and with both sides having the opportunity to be equally prepared. Evidence and arguments are presented (documents, testimony, statutes and case law) so the judge can fairly and formally decide whether the TRO should be made permanent, extended only for a definite period of time (short or long) or lifted completely (dissolved)(reversed).

The court papers were filed on Thursday. The emergency hearing was the next day. The emergency order only lasts through today's all encompassing emergency morning court hearing scheduled for today, which could already have been completed this very morning. This hearing and its timing would be any judge's very first priority under the law right now to the exclusion of any other allegedly important matters (even if a trial was a trial scheduled for today that was set five years ago for that day). Thedacare probably had to post a large bond as required by most TRO's.

I believe the employees **will be legally required to timely be paid** by Thedacare. More important, I hope as many of them worked or were on call just for this weekend at Thedacare- for the public good.

I also believe that Thedacare is WRONG. This could have all been prevented with employment contracts and agreed upon non-competes on how close (distance) the employees could work for usually one to three years after voluntarily leaving (as opposed to being fired).

More thoughts to come...


The "public" does not own the employees and is not entitled to the fruits of their labor.
14. Author: danmdevriesDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 4:33PM EST
I could see this happening by me. We're a comprehensive stroke center, the only one in the area, and the team is small and highly specialized. They get paid the same as any other nurse or rad tech in the hospital.

The other hospital system in the area is building a new facility and they feed us a lot of stroke patients from their many hospitals across Northern Indiana. They're missing out on a lot of money for these high stakes cases that are well-reimbursed by CMS. They'd be wise to recruit the team from us with better salaries, and establish their own program.

Sure there's going to be a loss of service in the community in the transitional period. But we're dealing with that now, all the cardiac cath lab staff in East Chicago left to do contract work, so that department has been closed for several months. They ship all their heart attacks to us, and our cath lab staff is ready to bail because they're overworked often doing more than 24 hours a "day". But again, not paid any more than I am. Maybe even less because the retention contract packages are only available to bedside staff.

If I were forced by court order to stay when I'd already announced my intent to quit, I would not maintain myself as employable. I'd force them to fire me and then go do what I was going to do.
15. Author: Speyside2Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 4:52PM EST
Robert ThedCare argument that the same care is over an hour away doesn't fly. Ascension is about 14 minutes away. So I think your point of what is day 1 of when Ascension is ready to go is all that serves the public interest.
16. Author: Speyside2Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 4:59PM EST
No, there is a difference Thedacare offers 24 stroke service Ascension does not.
17. Author: HockeyDadDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 5:04PM EST
bgz wrote:
I disagree with you. Second party comes in and poaches an entire team of your people and cripples an entire piece of your business...

They should be liable for that... that's malicious with intent to cause harm... especially in the medical industry.


Your business sucks if it can be franked that easy.
18. Author: HockeyDadDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 5:05PM EST
Gene363 wrote:
The "public" does not own the employees and is not entitled to the fruits of their labor.


Well it kinda seems like they do own them for the moment! Slavery evolved.
19. Author: SunoverbeachDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 5:05PM EST
"Where are you taking me?" Asked the patient. The doctor replied, "To the morgue." The patient protested, "But I'm not dead yet." "And we're not there yet," replied the doc
20. Author: Speyside2Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 5:20PM EST
When my doctor told me I needed an oblation I told him I wanted a second opinion. He said you're ugly too.
21. Author: tailgaterDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 9:41PM EST
bgz wrote:
I disagree with you. Second party comes in and poaches an entire team of your people and cripples an entire piece of your business...

They should be liable for that... that's malicious with intent to cause harm... especially in the medical industry.


You can say "intent to cause harm", but the reality is their intent was likely to gain skilled employees.

Tough to prove otherwise.

Besides, the real question is: were they vaccinated?


22. Author: rfenstDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 10:10PM EST
Gene363 wrote:
The "public" does not own the employees and is not entitled to the fruits of their labor.

No one owns those employees.

But, these are not employees in the regular sense. They have state licenses, laws, rules and medical ethical codes to follow in return for the right to do what they do. Much, much more so for both the hospitals. Taking one court day to figure all this b.s. out is not unreasonable when there is a clear public interest involved. This kind of thing happens with doctors ALL THE TIME, but rarely on an emergent basis. Watch, they will get paid...
23. Author: bgzDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 10:34PM EST
To all that opposed me on my opinion...

I changed my mind, f you all... I probably just woke up when I wrote that sh*t.

Though I think it's a d*ck move to poach someone's entire team (definitely can't blame the employees).

I don't know... might be waffling back.
24. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 11:11PM EST
rfenst wrote:
No one owns those employees.

But, these are not employees in the regular sense. They have state licenses, laws, rules and medical ethical codes to follow in return for the right to do what they do. Much, much more so for both the hospitals. Taking one court day to figure all this b.s. out is not unreasonable when there is a clear public interest involved. This kind of thing happens with doctors ALL THE TIME, but rarely on an emergent basis. Watch, they will get paid...


I see your point, there are all manner of licenced individuals, with rules of ethics, e.g. attornies, insoectors, fiduciaries... with this line of logic, they too could be prevented from retiring or changing jobs.
25. Author: HockeyDadDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 11:11PM EST
rfenst wrote:
No one owns those employees.

But, these are not employees in the regular sense. They have state licenses, laws, rules and medical ethical codes to follow in return for the right to do what they do. Much, much more so for both the hospitals. Taking one court day to figure all this b.s. out is not unreasonable when there is a clear public interest involved. This kind of thing happens with doctors ALL THE TIME, but rarely on an emergent basis. Watch, they will get paid...


No way. Don’t pay them. Now that we got them for free lock them in dorms and issue them work quotas for food.
26. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 11:12PM EST
bgz wrote:
To all that opposed me on my opinion...

I changed my mind, f you all... I probably just woke up when I wrote that sh*t.

Though I think it's a d*ck move to poach someone's entire team (definitely can't blame the employees).

I don't know... might be waffling back.


I just like to argue.
27. Author: Gene363Date: Mon, 1/24/2022, 11:13PM EST
HockeyDad wrote:
No way. Don’t pay them. Now that we got them for free lock them in dorms and issue them work quotas for food.


They should be thankful they are so useful.
28. Author: HockeyDadDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 11:16PM EST
bgz wrote:
Though I think it's a d*ck move to poach someone's entire team (definitely can't blame the employees).


Happens all the time in Silicon Valley!

If your team can be poached, you suck and need to learn the lesson.
29. Author: MACSDate: Mon, 1/24/2022, 11:17PM EST
You can say that again!
30. Author: bgzDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 12:00AM EST
I think HD just blew a nut at the thought of poaching a whole nest of good young eggs.
31. Author: borndead1Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 12:04AM EST
bgz wrote:
I disagree with you. Second party comes in and poaches an entire team of your people and cripples an entire piece of your business...

They should be liable for that... that's malicious with intent to cause harm... especially in the medical industry.



Why are you NOT on the side of the workers?
32. Author: bgzDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 12:13AM EST
borndead1 wrote:
Why are you NOT on the side of the workers?


lol, you didn't see my next message... and... "second party" was the target, not the workers.
33. Author: borndead1Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 12:54AM EST
bgz wrote:
lol, you didn't see my next message... and... "second party" was the target, not the workers.



Why is there any target at all? If a new company comes in and offers people higher pay/better benefits, isn't that a good thing?

34. Author: borndead1Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 12:55AM EST
If a court decides in favor of Thedacare, it would set a very dangerous precedent.
35. Author: BuckyB93Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 8:10AM EST
borndead1 wrote:
If a court decides in favor of Thedacare, it would set a very dangerous precedent.


I agree 100%

Scenario: a new grocery store opens up in the next town over. Employees leave the grocery store in your town to work at the newer store which is offering higher pay and better benefits. If you're going to use "in the interest of the public," then wouldn't that apply these grocery store workers?

During the whole COVID thing, state and federal governments have determined grocery store, convenience store, liquor store, pharmacy etc... workers as "essential employees" along with the likes of health care providers, public safety, first responders, etc...
36. Author: rfenstDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 8:21AM EST
My bottom line is to look whether the community will be hurt **during** the transition. Will there be top-notch stroke care available in the community while the transition takes place? I just love how much we all think we know about this based on newspaper articles- instead of the actual court documents and rulings.
37. Author: BuckyB93Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 8:43AM EST
I never claimed to know about this based on newspaper articles instead of actual court documents and rulings.

I'm just not comfortable with the government nor the courts making sweeping mandates, executive decisions, and rulings shrouded behind the premise of "for the best of public interest" which trample on individual rights (in this case the right of a worker to choose where they want to work).

I contend that we have too many lawyers and not enough workers in the supply chain arena. In the interest of the public, we should force the lawyers to work in areas of shortages like on loading docks and in meat packing plants.
38. Author: BuckyB93Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 8:44AM EST
Tirty NINE!
39. Author: Gene363Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 9:10AM EST
rfenst wrote:
My bottom line is to look whether the community will be hurt **during** the transition. Will there be top-notch stroke care available in the community while the transition takes place? I just love how much we all think we know about this based on newspaper articles- instead of the actual court documents and rulings.


It's 2021, facts no longer matter, it's all about feelings. d'oh!


OTOH, what are the legal rights of the "community" to receive good healthcare?
40. Author: HockeyDadDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 9:32AM EST
BuckyB93 wrote:


During the whole COVID thing, state and federal governments have determined grocery store, convenience store, liquor store, pharmacy etc... workers as "essential employees" along with the likes of health care providers, public safety, first responders, etc...


That ‘cause ‘Rona doesn’t hang out in those kinds of stores. Science.
41. Author: HockeyDadDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 9:33AM EST
rfenst wrote:
My bottom line is to look whether the community will be hurt **during** the transition. Will there be top-notch stroke care available in the community while the transition takes place? I just love how much we all think we know about this based on newspaper articles- instead of the actual court documents and rulings.


Was it “top notch” stroke care if most of its employees quit?
42. Author: bgzDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 9:34AM EST
borndead1 wrote:
Why is there any target at all? If a new company comes in and offers people higher pay/better benefits, isn't that a good thing?



No, it's not a good thing because of the method which was employed... there's a conspiracy there to callously leave a hospital without an entire team of people.

Some would consider that evil according to our definitions of such.

So no... the method of obtaining the talent was malicious and callous and what's disturbing is nobody saw anything morally wrong with doing this.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole lot of them are a bunch of sh*tbags... all parties involved.

As of this morning though, I still reluctantly agree with those of you who didn't think of the ethical implications, but I consider you morally dubious. It's ok though, we're Americans, it's expected of us.

Oh, I know it makes me an awful human, but I generally side with HD on employees, as I spent most of my career as an Employer and not an Employee... so I might be a bit biased.

43. Author: HockeyDadDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 10:02AM EST
Perhaps I should explain: even as an employer one should always think like an employee. Even CEOs are still employees.

Company A sucks.
Employees leave and go to Company B.
Choice: fix Company A or run to lawyers.
Decision: run to lawyers.
Net result: Company A still sucks but now has court ordered indentured servants.

Company A no longer needs to fix itself.
44. Author: bgzDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 11:13AM EST
Right... I reluctantly agree with you... even though I think everyone involved is a sh*t bag.
45. Author: tonygrazDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 12:29PM EST
I think anybody that works for company A would have a case of IDGAF.
46. Author: Speyside2Date: Tue, 1/25/2022, 1:08PM EST
Judge overturned restraining order late yesterday.
47. Author: bgzDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 3:02PM EST
HockeyDad wrote:
Perhaps I should explain: even as an employer one should always think like an employee. Even CEOs are still employees.


So all employees were created equal? Gtf outa here with that sh*t.
48. Author: rfenstDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 3:38PM EST
BuckyB93 wrote:
I never claimed to know about this based on newspaper articles instead of actual court documents and rulings.

I'm just not comfortable with the government nor the courts making sweeping mandates, executive decisions, and rulings shrouded behind the premise of "for the best of public interest" which trample on individual rights (in this case the right of a worker to choose where they want to work).

I contend that we have too many lawyers and not enough workers in the supply chain arena. In the interest of the public, we should force the lawyers to work in areas of shortages like on loading docks and in meat packing plants.

My post number 36 was NOT directed to your post number 35. LOL>
49. Author: HockeyDadDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 3:38PM EST
Speyside2 wrote:
Judge overturned restraining order late yesterday.


I guess all that is left now is to recall the judge and disbar the attorney.
50. Author: HockeyDadDate: Tue, 1/25/2022, 3:40PM EST
bgz wrote:
So all employees were created equal? Gtf outa here with that sh*t.


The only place where employees are created equal is in unions. Even there some are more equal than others.
FirstPrev12NextLast
Sign In to Reply
Next TopicJump to TopPrev Topic