This lawsuit will make it practically impossible for ThedaCare to hire replacement staff anytime soon. The lawsuit advertised the fact that they pay significantly less than the competition, and that they'll get vindictive when employees leave. They're going to lose their Level 2 certification as a result of being unable to hire qualified replacements.
Yup, and to boot they may very well have to pay lucrative perks and bonuses to attract replacement staff that when you factor in legal costs will put them more in the hole than had they simply matched salary for old staff. Lots of bad faith and they have demonstrated proficiency in making themselves look like asses.
This is a vindictive boss who is mad that 7 people quit and wanted to keep the other employees in line with fear. We all know this type of boss, the guy that stops by at 5:25 on a Friday or on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving then sends email asking questions to see what the employees will say and to take roll call. This is the boss who cares more about the people who brown-nose rather than people who are good at their job. Real people know all about this but judges, and many lawyers, are not real people.
They may not be able to hire qualified experience people but it will provide an opportunity for inexperience people to find a job and gain experience. Not really a good result. That does not mean those inexperience people are not qualified BUT they lack experience.
I shake my head at the fact the hospital did not have money to pay their workers a competitive wage, yet have the money to sue the other hospital for "poaching".
I just let my nursing license expire in January - a few months shy of 15 years as an RN. That hospital administrators tried to pull this, does not surprise me. That the judge actually thought the employees would then be open to any compromise with that hospital actually did surprise me. If any facility administrators sued me for leaving my at-will job, there would be NO circumstances to ever entice me to work with them to “resolve” this.
I think he was actually expecting Hospital A to have a come-to-jesus moment and realize they were acting insane. Definitely wishful thinking on his part. A reasonable employer would never pull some bull like this in the first place.
I kind of wonder if the judge gave the order _just_ because he knew that it would fuck over the hospital in the long term. "You want me to do what? Wow, you guys sound like assholes. Sure, motion granted. You can have exactly what you wanted. I'm sure your PR and hiring teams are going to be absolutely thrilled when they hear about this."
The problem with 'at-will' hiring and firing laws is that even though it goes both ways (employee can also quit without notice), a lot of companies think 'at-will' is a one-way street in their favor and they could use it to bully and control their employees
Yes, but new employers will ask if they gave 2 weeks notice when the left. Also if you dont give 2 weeks notice, you will burn a bridge with that employer so you cant go back.
@@GROGU123 Corporations are more then happy to fire at will with no regrets. They have zero fucks to give to walk anyone out the damn door on a moment's notice, because. And let's be real, if you are upset and ready to blow this crazy place, then freaking leave and be happy, you NEVER have to work there again! Far too many employers treat their employees like shit. Speak loudly by walking away to a better work/life!
It came out in Monday's hearing, that all 7 employees where fired from hospital A (ThedaCare) on Jan 14. So it is obvious that they didn't need them. Also supported by other facts and actions. So it looks like all hospital A was doing is being vindictive against employees who leave to get better jobs. Likely violating labor laws, which leaves open a strong possibility of a counter suit.
@@4gunslinger most judges from what I know will not honor a non-compete from a business. In the US we have free movement, work, commerce etc. The only time it would uphold is if you have company trade secrets that you are now exposing and causing harm to your previous company. It is simply a deterrent for you not to leave and if you do, for them to haggle you with court hearings etc. Some employers wont hire you because once they find out you had a non-compete they dont want your progress in working with them slowed down by hearings so they just avoid it all together they dont want to deal with it. If you are a nurse and for some reason need to move to another city or state for whatever reason what makes it legal for them to stop you from working. Nothing!
“I quit” “You’re fired” doesn’t even work here. I sure hope every employee sues for wrongful termination because they had already quit! So their employment record is tarnished by the “you’re fired” vindictive behavior by Hospital A.
"Poaching" other companies employees is a term invented by current employers who don't want to pay a market wage. Anti-poaching deals are collusion among employers to stifle wages and have usually been found illegal.
Not always, a company(A) could also do poaching to harm the company(B) they are poaching from, by taking key workers or enough of them, so that the company(B) no longer could function. Company(A) could be doing only to harm company(B), not because they needed the workers. That was not the case here, as there was no poaching, just job listings those 7 sought out themselves.
Well to be fair poaching implies that the opposing employer went to the old employers business and made job offers. Which is kind of scummy no matter what side you're on, as opposed to going to the prospective employees home/mailing them a letter.
@@prayboy7812 "Poaching" means whatever the company who is getting poached wants it to mean. Usually what it really means is a company is offering a compensation package the current employer is unwilling to match. They attach the term "poaching" to imply something nefarious.
On a side note: Never accept a matched offer to stay when you're trying to transition to a new job. You will not be there a year later... all you're doing is letting them buy time to replace you and honestly something made you seek a new job in the first place.
Been down that road. My employer was suddenly willing to pay me what I was worth to keep me after shortchanging me for my five years of employment... almost accepted their counter offer but thankfully moved on.
I agree 100%, although I've worked at some companies where you could "pull a holdup" one time without it triggering them to start training your replacement, or having you do so! It's possible in situations where the primary issue is money, typically caused by wage compression, past salary freezes, low average raises, etc. Even then, if everyone is underpaid, becoming the only one who's not underpaid, is a terrible idea. Just leave. But if it's from being a loyal employee who didn't leave during hard times for the company, and newer hires are paid better, coming up to parity is something you likely will not be retaliated against for. Nobody can expect you to not become a squeaky wheel when someone you just hired who reports to you, is making 20% more than you. At a minimum, to consider staying in a holdup/match situation, there needs to be trust between you, your boss, their boss, the top HR person, and the top executive aware of the situation. If you and that bunch of people can't all comfortably shake hands and promise that bringing you up to market pay will not lead to repercussions from them or another holdup by you, it is far better to leave.
Exactly. Never, ever change your mind and stay, once you've told your employer you're quitting. They will screw you over any way they can; instead of leaving when you have a job to go to, they will dump you without the notice you gave them, and you will be stuck with nothing in train.
They were told by an ex employee about the pay rate. They were not unhappy where they were working they just wanted to make the same as they would else where. The employer said no then they decided to leave.
YES!!! People go out of their way to find another job than try and use it to bargain with their currently employer. That's dumb! AT WILL was established so that you COULD pursue a better job without any negative implications from your existing employer...and vice-versa.
As an RN, these type of cases are intriguing to me. I’ve worked in several environments and the nature of my particular role, I interact with other medical professionals from nearly all hospitals within a few hundred miles away (I’m a critical care transport nurse). I often contemplate jobs elsewhere but there is a complex of factors to consider before doing so. I could be paid more at other jobs BUT I would be placed under more daily stress. I also take into consideration how the different employers treat their employees. Seeing the legal attempt made by “Hospital A”, that would immediately rule out that hospital as a place I’d want to work. Anyone that is truly desired would also not to work there in the future too, meaning they will be stuck with people no one else wants. “Hospital A” has just committed figurative suicide.
How this usually plays out is they have to pay higher wages to first-time workers. The culture issue doesn't get addressed because the problem managers are still there, and now have even more easily molded workers. But in the end, those workers will also jump ship. And their department becomes a "stepping stone" stuck overpaying for high turnover rate. I've been one of those first time workers in a different industry that took that job. And then parlayed it into a better employer a year later once I had experience and references. At the time I was hired, they were using a tax scam to overpay -- claiming their entire workforce was "distant" / out of state and using untaxed per diem as half of our salary just to boost it above the competition. The deal was, to maintain their lie, you had to take 1 month off after 11 months of work. And they were legit confused why every new employee found a different / better job in that month.
Also as Nurse i think its more about intimating and terrifying the other current employees. If you Leave we will come after you. Also you know all those people are most likely blacklisted.
I sure as Hell wouldn't work for Hospital A, or ThedaCare to be more specific. It should be every healthcare worker's responsibility to make sure everyone knows about these companies.
@@dualkelly blacklisting is mostly a fallacy. I can't tell you how many times I knew of people terminated with strong recommendations against rehire in their employee files. Usually HR doesn't have time to look.
Im a nurse im working on a different country, and im sharing this story to every nurse i know so they can be aware if they ever have an offer from this company to give it a second thought.
I am a nurse. I can tell you that their ultimate goal was intimidation and keeping nurses in a position without providing anything additional. Not those nurses, mind you, most of the others. Their goal was to teach the nurses (and other HCP) that if you leave, you will have a huge legal bill and even if you win, it won't be worth it. ThedaCare is not the only Healthcare organization to think this way. And people wonder why people are leaving the profession in droves, why new nurses bail after their 2 year contract is up, and why people are retiring early.
Worked for this company. The intimidation of staff has deep roots in this company. They had a big law suit about 5 years ago...You would have thought they would have learned their lesson then...
@@amzarnacht6710 dude, do you not realize that what ThedaCare is doing is what socialism is at it's core? Or that roads are easily something that local residents can either build themselves or hire a company to do? While local government is simply easier to organize to pay for roads they aren't the only way to do it.
Had I been an employee of hospital A, and witnessed this and I was even a slit bit unhappy, I would be looking to leave. Businesses that do not treat their workers with respect do not deserve to be in business.
I've spent 30+ years as an RN in the Operating Room. It's one hostile environment. The angriest, most controlling and dysfunctional people work in an OR. The egos are fantastic. There is a pecking order in each hierarchy. Those hierarchies include the RN, surgeons, scrub techs/LPNs, and anesthesia. One day this one is an idiot and the next day he's a genius. It's pretty messed up. Lemme give you a peek of the kinds of things that go on in surgery... Upon getting my 88 year old female patient onto the OR table, I noticed she had a skin tear on her forearm. Tissue paper skin is fragile. You can almost take your thumb and take the skin back. When the surgeon came into the room I showed him the open wound and asked what dressing materials would he like me to apply. I told him I would fix her up while he was doing his surgical scrub. He told me not to. He was always a jerk but it is NOT my practice to proceed with surgery BEFORE attending an open wound! At the end of the case, again I inquired about dressing the wound. He said, "Goddamnit, she's a medicare patient and I won't even get paid a fourth for what I just did and they won't pay for that dressing either so "f*ck it" and f*u k medicare". I was so pissed I couldn't see straight. I walked right over to my cabinet and I selected the dressing materials and dressed the wound myself and I let the hospital eat it. I never put those materials on my patient charge sheet The other thing is--- you never hand off a patient to another nurse with an open wound! It's a liability and you could be reprimanded for neglect! When hospitals do not stand up for the patient advocacy nurses and bend to the surgeons---it is no wonder that staff will find their way to the employment of another hospital who pays them more for the abuses suffered at the hands of administrative services. Problem is--- that hospital has an administration too and they all operate in like manner.
I have personally seen doctors kill patients out of arrogance and greed. Yes, I said kill. I managed to get one of them fired, but usually they just go on and kill more. All of this sh** is why I left healthcare.
Several employees leaving at the same time is almost always an indication of a bad work conditions. I expect ThedaCare to have a significant loss of their nursing staff. If this went permanent, it would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
@@warrenbennett1863 If employers can get a legal injunction preventing employees from obtaining work elsewhere, it would allow employers to treat their employees horribly, leading to decline in work quality and output. So dangerous to everyone.
The threat to sue if one quits is the very reason to quit a organization like that and not a reason to stay in a hostile work environment. What a $#(! show of management.
I'm sure the judge knew that. It was a tactic to get the two parties to talk - obviously that didn't work out, thus it was lifted. Otherwise, it would have easily been challenged.
Actually, the judge was spot on. As Steve explained, the judge attempted to persuade the parties to come to an agreement rather than engage in a court battle.
Thank You!! The first thing I thought was, "Indentured Servitude". How in hell would ThedaCare think a suit would be successful? And how in hell would they enforce it? I personally would go work as a restaurant dishwasher than go back to a company that did that just out of spite. If I lived in the area and could help it, I would never step foot in any of ThedaCare's facilities ever. And ThedaCare should fire any leadership involved and replace all their legal representation immediately as they are incompetent on multiple levels. The judge had an allergic reaction to stupidity. He hoped that over the weekend an adult would get invovled.
They intended the lawsuit to be a warning to other employees that they would suffer if they chose to leave, too. Fortunately for human decency, it backfired. I agree with you that ThedaCare needs to overhaul their management, administration, and legal teams to become a non-shitty place to work if they want to recover. Nobody is going to want to work there unless they’re too awful or too green for everyone else, and patients won’t want to go to a hospital where they know the workers are demoralized and exhausted and no one wants to work there.
as discussed, it wasn't about forcing those employees to come back and work. it was about making them hurt and send a message to everyone else. its close enough to union busting. you see those employees making noise, transfer them to a new position and set them up for failure. give them the expectation of performing a job that previously was performed by 2 or 3 people... Fire them for repeated inabilty to perform as expected. it didn't work out this time, but all that had to happen was the court case dragging on for 2 or more weeks
In a three judge panel ruling, then judge Gorsich in a dissenting opinion stated that employees were property of their employers. The truck driver in that case abandoned his disabled vehicle in sub freezing temperatures. Gorsich said the driver was required to stay and die. Now he’s a Supreme Court justice with a supermajority to make that opinion the law of the land.
"What right did the hospital have to sue the departing employees...probably none" But the judge went ahead and granted the TRO anyway. Therein lies the problem with the US legal system. Judges issuing unjustified rulings with no legal merit that impact peoples' lives. The judge should have said to the hospital (on Friday), "You have no legal grounds to justify a TRO. Come back if you can find a better argument. If you can't I will dismiss your suit and assign you to pay all costs to the other hospital and the employees." The fact that the judge did the right thing 3 days later just makes it a short term failure as opposed to a long term.
Even the lives of future patients (dollars) shouldn't sway the judge or impede the will and choice of the workers. This country is in need of a revolution. For real.
@@mikealvord55 my point is that the judge's actions were those of a lawyer and a participant in a system of legal procedure rather than a system of justice. In a system of justice the TRO would never have happened. The first hospital would not have suffered irrevocable harm in those three days. They should not have been able to get a rubber-stamp TRO without showing at least a prima facie case in their favor coupled with significant harm that could not be redressed later. A plaintiff should not be able to get a judge to restrain the actions of someone they want to sue just because they might have a case later. So yes I did listen to the video I just disagree that it was an appropriate action if we truly value justice above legal technicalities.
Now the former employees should sue Thedacare for filing a malicious lawsuit who's only purpose was to harm them. "At Will" employment is a contract between the employer and employee...it's an "At Will" contract. Thedacare broke that contract by trying to deny the employees their "At Will" Rights.
The former Hospital A employees would have to prove they were financially harmed by the suit against Hospital B. Remember, the former Hospital A employees were not named as defendants.
Just shows you really what they represent...profit over people. Without these RNs, they won't have that profit. Hospital A can hire some new talent...ohh wait, they are asking for the same amount of compensation as the RNs before. Hrmmmm....
I remember when the Governor of Wisconsin changed the state to at will,privilege to work,right to work what ever you want to call it. It basically gave rights to business to fire employees to get cheaper employees. But we are living in different times where employees are figuring out changing employers every few years gives you a better raise then being a loyal employee and now businesses are throwing a tantrum because the law they asked for isn’t working in their favor 🤦♂️
As a Wisconsinite, I’m still pissed about that. Scott Wanker demonized state workers and the belly crawling creatures in the state government shoved through every anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-human trash law they could. Now that we have a Democratic governor, those same swamp dwelling invertebrates keep passing trash laws they know he’ll veto and pushing for more and more partisan control over elections and government accountability. They even got the state Supreme Court (conservative leaning) to say that any new congressional maps have to be “least change” from their disgustingly gerrymandered maps from a decade ago. There are intelligent, honorable Republicans who truly value US democracy. Unfortunately, they’re not in charge in Wisconsin.
Which is the whole point behind "at will" states. To many people allow themselves to feel forced, or bullied. When you're an "at will" employee, you have equal control over your employment status.
Its really more about the ability to join unions. It used to be required to join a business to also join a union. So the Rebublicans invented a backdoor union busting idea, "Right to work". Like here in Florida, we are not required to join a union by law...hence kneecapping unions by losing new signups and solidarity.
Good that the TRO was lifted but I still can't believe the lawsuit is going forward. Like, these people don't work for you anymore, what standing do you have? And should employers check to see what the going rate of a worker is before posting a job? What duty does one employer have to another when posting jobs and recruiting workers? Wouldn't it actually be illegal for these employers to fix wages?
Yes, it is illegal for employers to collude to fix wages/working conditions. ThedaCare is using the courts to get the same thing. “Hire our workers for better wages and you’ll be spending money on lawsuits.” Pretty typical corporate-“non-profit” in this case-abuse of people.
@@timdowney6721 no it's not. It's only illegal for business to fix consumer prices. There is literally nothing against fixing salaries. Please stop making shit up
Boston nurses were going back and forth, hospital to hospital to get higher pay. Then hospitals colluded, not sure what happened and all the articles are gone
As I watched this it reminded me of a guy that claimed to have a substantial amount of money who wanted to buy in as a partner in my repair shop. I declined his request; I was happy doing everything myself. The next thing I knew was I got a letter that the property was for sale. In my lease (contract) I had first right of refusal. While I was happy with my business as it was, there was no way that I was going to be able to buy the property. The interested party was of course the guy that wanted to buy his way into my shop. I remember the empty feeling knowing that all he really wanted to do was take my business from me. I found myself with the choices of essentially ending up working for him, watching him simply take what I had created, or just shut it down. He only backed off with the purchase idea when I made it clear that by the time he would take ownership I and my business would have been long gone. I watched this guy a little over a year later try to open a shop with another shop owner in the town only to rip him for tens of thousands of dollars in inventory and equipment and monies that went toward purchasing a building. It ended up in court and that shop owner even though he won still hasn't recovered what he lost.
I still don't see how the judge could legally stop the employees from going to work on Monday. He should have made provisions for hospital #1 to pay them for any days lost if he ordered a TRO. NO JUDGE should have that kind of power to do what he did under the circumstances.
Uh, apparently you haven't been watching the potato-in-chief writing 1000 laws via executive order. When government is just one big good ole' boys club, there are no consequences for exceeding your authority.
Yeh. That does seem to be the state of affairs these days. Do whatever you want and who is going to stop you. That is, if you are on the right side meaning the left side.@@theincantrix1144
I’m a R.N…over the years of my career I worked in several different hospitals. Gladly accepted lower pay to stay in a hospital I liked with management that treated employees with respect. Would have stayed much longer but they were forced by economic stresses to merge with the big guys in town…better pay and benefits but the crappy attitude of management was unbearable. Employees fought back and established the first R.N. Union in our area.
@@darbywing2 The entire medical profession is not as dedicated as it was decades ago. Nurses are not the same as they were decades ago. They are mean spirited and lack dedication and compassion. They are really nuts! Now run along MY CHILD.
@@bohemoth1 The only nut here is you. Health care professionals have the same rights as any other person to be paid a fair wage. We are not slaves! The employees in this matter are simply taking their dedication and compassion to another hospital. The for profit hospitals that have replaced the charities that used to provide hospital care are the source of 'mean spirited'-ness! People-even nurses!-are not property!
That judge had NO RIGHT TO ISSUE THE T.R.O. IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! There was NO CONTRACT he was enforcing! It was ILLEGAL, what he did!!! At least he overturned it... But it never should've been issued. And the hospital that sued? They should be forced to pay EVERYONE'S legal costs!! This is why we need a loser-pays legal system. Period.
@@ineedhoez because they can’t afford a lawyer worth a damn. If we had a loser-pays legal system, their budget would be equal to the bigger party, because the bigger party would be footing the bill. Loser-pays would end frivolous lawsuits and would protect people from big corporations and bigger governments ganging up on them.
The big losers, as you point out, are workers in general who now have their individual bargaining rights permanently weakened by the threat of litigation hanging over every decision to move to another employer for better pay and working conditions. The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off.
Nah, they gambled and lost. This would have indeed cowed other employees had it worked, but it failed and went viral. Management no longer holds the cards, employees who recognize this would be wise to be shuffling their deck right now.
Not at all. Without the employees telling them where they were going, in trying to get a counter-offer, the hospital would have no one to even try to sue. As an employee, you just quit - without broadcasting why or where.
@@theincantrix1144 that may be true for most jobs but there could be info about training and qualifications in their HR files that needed to be transferred to hospital B. Someone in HR at Hosp A probably noticed “Holy crap I’ve done 7 file transfers to Hosp B in 2 days!”
@@AndyGeesGarage True enough, but it would at that point already have been moot. Since they would have no longer been employees of company A. Can't try to stop someone, who is already gone.
Another factor is not allowing the ex-employees from hospital 1 not to start their new jobs negatively affects patients at hospital 2. Hospital 1 did retaliatory actions.. Or in common law Fcked the employees over.
This ridiculous lawsuit shows the sad state of corporate medicine in the US. Most hospital systems care more about profit than they do about quality patient care or the quality of their employees providing the care.
Yet the 'socialised' medicine Canada, Europe and Australasia enjoy, with free/cheap access, fair wages, and controls on drug pricing, and much better health outcomes, are so often decried in the USA.
@@oldpolishguy253 I'm in the US. Most people I know do have contracts, if they have enough time in a job it would be considered a career. They are at will contracts which can be terminated by either party, but what they do contain is rate of compensation, travel, health benefits, 401 Plan's, vehicle allowance etc etc. Virtually every hospital employee I know is under a contract.
The UK zero-hours contracts are like USA at-will contracts.......very little obligation for the employers....so quite similar. But, they do not guarantee any specified number of weekly hours....hence the term "zero hours"
The lawyers from Ascension did a wonderful job breaking down Thedacare's actions. Thedacare had 2 weeks to replace the 7 employees. They changed their status so they could be put on the rota and then blocked access to work emails. That was constructive dismissal. The ex-employees offered their services to help during the transition. Due to this lawsuit, the ex-employees pretty much said they would never help Thedacare now. Thedacare even told Ascension they won't be re-routing patients their way. Then Ascension showed how there hasn't been a critical failure of the care they provide due to the loss of these 7 ex-employees. Basically, what Thedacare said would happen, would actually happen if the judge granted Thedacare's request. That's because Ascension now offer that same Stroke care with these 7 employees.
They might take that stance now, but once they are sued by the family of someone who needed to be rerouted but was not due to spite. Thedacare is behaving like a tantrumming toddler.
Steve, you were on point for the law but you missed the real reason. Hospital A wasn't concerned about losing the employees, they can be replaced. What they were concerned about was losing the high revenue procedures the employees provided. When they say it isn't about the money, it always is.
You are correct; but they are essentially one and the same. Of course they were protecting their revenue source, they weren't just hoping to see the faces of their favorite employees. If they could replace the employees they would not likely have lost the revenue from the procedures, except for the fact that they would be losing market share to the hiring hospital. This is somewhat of a closed system.
After I had a transfer approved to move to a different branch office within a company, the local branch manager at the one I worked at wouldn't let me transfer until she had two replacements to take my place which was NOT part of the agreement. I fought her actions for almost two months even using the union with zero results. Finally had to take my case to the CEO/owner and threaten with a lawsuit to finally get released to transfer. Basically I felt like I was being held hostage.
The branch manager could have had no plan to hire anyone else, and had you languishing at your current office for several months. Rslash covered a story today from someone who was in a similar situation.
@@theincantrix1144 say what? Her transfer was approved. The old manager is the one who should be fired, you cannot stop a transfer if the higher ups have approved it.
Wouldn't it have been quicker for you too find some applicants for her? I mean how many job site are out there? How hard would it have been to send a few dozen applicants her way? Surely a flood of what she requested would have seen you out the door much quicker.
My dad was a member of the Bar in Ohio until his death a few years ago. Watching your videos reminds me of years of past conversations with him regarding the law that I enjoyed to the fullest. I have always been an excellent student, however he would often tell me that although I had an excellent understanding of the Law itself I lacked the understanding of precedent. He told me a story of a prof putting a magazine sized book on the table saying "this is the law" and then placing an encyclopedia sized book on the table next to it and saying "this is the interpretation of that law". He would caution me that this gap in my education could get me into a mess. I miss him everyday and your videos make me reminiscent of the hours we spent conversing. Thank you for what you bring to the community and me personally.
Stare Decisis is a huge problem in that some judges and lawyers, use it as an excuse to apply the law incorrectly simply because someone tortured the decision they wanted out of it.
@W S Tavis @George Ulicny Thank you both for the replies. Precedent is an endeavor to be consistent, not the opposite. stare decisis stâr′ē dĭ-sī′sĭs noun 1 The doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decision making in a case involving similar facts. 2 The principle of following judicial precedent. If judges and lawyers, use it as an excuse to apply the law incorrectly then they do so ignoring stare decisis not as a result of it.
Little tidbit, probably the most famous line in American judicial history is John Marshall writing that "[i]It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." _Marbury v. Madison,_ 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).
@@wstavis3135 Legal precedent goes a long way to un-muddy the waters and allows trials to either move forward or in the instance of a lack of Stare Decisis, allow a case to be dismissed or simply not heard.
I have one complaint about your analysis. Hospital A did not run to court right after they denied a counter offer. They ran to court nearly a month later the Thursday before the employees were scheduled to start their new jobs with Hospital B seeking a TRO to stop them from starting. This is seriously basically them just putting tortuous interference and fair labors standards violations on pubic record.
He never said it was "right after". He just said "after". Friday was after the counter offer. Of course, I don't remember if anyone ever made clear exactly when the counter offer was declined.
@@michaeloleary6035 I'm no law expert, but, as the story has been presented, hospital A's actions seem to fit the wikipedia definition of tortious interference with a business relationship pretty clearly. Please explain how that is 'certainly' not the case. Am I missing some important connection here?
I think the only way ThedaCare can save face on this is for their board to make a public statement apologizing to Ascension, the employees, and the community, and confirms the management staff who reviewed offers and rejected to match has been counseled and the management team who decided to file this lawsuit have been terminated.
@@lizlagle671 True, but that wont stop them from tossing someone in management or a low level exec and lay the blame entirely on them. With a very generous severance package of course.
So, not only does the first hospital advertise that they are a 'bad' place to work they are also letting prospective patients know to go to the other hospital!!
I have taken advantage of "at will" laws for my entire life. I have a set of very specialized skills. I often get asked during interviews, "why have you changed jobs so often?". The answernis always the same. I work in a developing field, and when I get a better offer, I go to the best offer. When the company I work for refuses to match the offer (some dumb HR rep always thinks its a bluff), I take the new job. I repeat the process again, if I get new offers. I dont exist to grow companies I do not own. I exist to take care of myself. I am financially responsible, so I can afford to give a compnay an ultimatim (pay me more or I quit). This attitude has led to quadrupaling my income in the past 5 years. I literally have "skills that pay bills", that few people have. I always hear the same excuse. "If other employees heard you make 3 times more than them, we would have issues.". I always answer the same. "Can any of those employees do what I do, or can you find anyone else who can?
Yes!!!!! The American worker would have so much more leverage if we stopped buying stupid shit and having having $700 car payments. If we stopped living beyond our means, we could have the savings savings to take risks. We could impact policy changes with massive strikes by the general population because we've got money in the bank. Money is money is what makes the world go round and we keep giving all of our money to other people so we can have shiny things
@@ineedhoez exactly, also we probably would not be in any recessions either in my opinion. We get out of recessions and what do people do, slowly build debt back up, buy crap they dont need, borrow endlessly for everything until it all pops and comes crashing down. If you save, invest and clear out your obligations i.e debts, than you could afford almost anything.
The whole thing should have ended when the employment was based on "at will" the first employer had the opportunity to employ on a more substantial contract but chose not to out of greed. They reaped what they sowed and got what they deserved.
It shouldn't have been granted to begin with and it was absolutely ridiculous that the judge allowed it as a bluff. Judge needs to be investigated for abuse of power for inappropriately using TROs to get out of actually doing their job.
The judge should be thrown from his post, too. He cost the workers and both hospitals completely unnecessary costs and possible patients of the new hospital their life...
I wonder how easy it will now be for hospital A to recruit replacements for the staff who have left? Who would want to work for them on an at will basis? I suspect they will end up having to offer contracts with minimum notice periods on both sides. They might well need to do that for a number of their existing at will employees, or risk losing them and will need to offer incentives for people to sign up to that. This whole going to court thing might end up costing them a lot of money because of the damage it will have done to their reputation as an employer. They will need to put extra incentives in place for people to want to work for them, particularly in a sector where there are staff shortages.
They may have to hire from over seas, like the Philippines or India were is an abundance of qualified medical staff and would work for less...its a fact wether we like it or not. Guarantee they are going to look at all options to save a buck!😐
they might even end up needing to offer more than it would have cost to outbid the other hospital. which I can live with, except they will raise their rates to protect their profit margin.
@@nodak81 Not in this environment. If you are a qualified health care worker, you will have your choice of job offers at a number of employers simply for walking in the door. Qualified health care workers would not choose to work for ThedaCare because those workers have the ability to get a job ANYWHERE... and ThedaCare has shown exactly what kind of employer they are, thorough this court action.
@@nodak81 I think you are missing my point. Hospital A is clearly not an organisation that treats its staff well. The technicians are highly skilled. There is a labour shortage in the area of work. There is no labour dispute going on. The people have left for other jobs. The hospital is going to have difficulty recruiting replacement staff because of all the damaging publicity they have received about the way they treat their staff. There is no need for anybody with the relevant skills to "scab" because they can easily find work with their skills.
The employees gave them a months notice. I'm sure that they could have hired locum replacements in that time, even if they couldn't recruit permanent staff. Of course that would have been expensive, so they went to court instead. Seems that they prefer to give their $$$ to lawyers rather than health professionals.
At-will employees aren't required to give any notice. This lawsuit is complete garbage, and I hope ThedaCare loses more employees and gets sued by those employees they affected with their nonsense.
@@douglasrowland3722 It doesn't make sense. The hospital put themselves in a lose-lose position. Even if the judge had, for some bizarre reason, granted their motion they still couldn't have forced the staff back to work for them. Their lawyers will be happy though, as their bank their cheques.
So the judge was hoping the two corporate medical companies would collude against the employees over the weekend? That ThedaCare filed this suit showed what kind of sorry excuses for human beings they are. No one will want to hire on with people like that in charge.
My sense was that this was a precedent that a company could use to break a strike, keeping employees in a position where they were wronged, but precedent said the action by their employer was legal. This was a very important case. I am glad the workers won and the temporary in junction was removed. I am not a lawyer, I am a third year student in the Facebook school of sounding like one.
There was no precedent made, the judge simply upheld a longstanding precedent. A closer example is, the employer decides to cease paying the workers completely, but wants the court to force them back to work.
Even if this had established a precident, it couldnt really be used to break a strike. Striking workers cant be forced to work, and typically unions pay weekly sustenance money to keep workers from needing to work another job for the week or two most strikes last.
In before "Group of employees class action suit their prior employer for violating their Constitutional Rights through attempting to file a restraining order to conscript them from working for another company." They are still literally owed pay for every shift they were not allowed to engage in due to this TRO _AT THEIR NEW EMPLOYER'S PAY RATE_ by the prior employer. If the hospital that tried to stop them from exercising their *contractual rights* thinks this was ok, they should probably have a federal investigation of employment practices done, starting with the execution of the contracts of the staffing management.
From what I have heard from this and the last video, it takes a criminal to allow that TRO in the first place. Judges should know the law, but don't. That TRO should never have been allowed.
I would think this debacle leaves a bad taste for remaining employees and could result in a bigger exodus or at least reconsider position. That being any potential employers might be weary.
In 1970 I had a Fluid Dynamics teacher who had been an engineer at NASA. He said they were so desperate for workers that they offered new hires more than current employees. The employees were better off to quit and get rehired. Don't know if that really happened, but it was an option. Lots of work place happenings don't make sense.
Lots of places have done that. I'm speculating but they probably were counting on employees not noticing which they try to encourage by making policies against telling anyone what your pay is or not wanting to go through change when they are comfortable so they can more easily shortchange them. (Another thing done is to move old employees up to the new starting wage but you are still in the old raise rotation so the new person will exceed you in pay on their yearly while this is counted as the yearly raise so you have to wait a year plus the number of months for your next one).
About 16 years ago at a College I worked at they could not hire competent staff at the rate they were paying staff with 2+ years on site experience...They decided that it would be a smart idea to hire new people at about 5-10% more than the experienced staff were being paid.... Turn over increased to 50% every 3 months from the horrible 50% every 6 months.
Seen that recently. Employee could not get paid more when hired before graduating college, yet the degree gets more pay if hired with it. So, employee quit and hired with degree.
The judge was out of line, however, in saying he wanted them to work together on a transition. And the reason for that is because the employees didn't owe the former employer anything. Once they quit that was it, there's no continuing obligation. The judge was trying to force something he had no right to force.
@@DracoSolon Steve is an attorney. Meaning, he knows much more about the law and how courts function than most of the people who post here. Including this poster. Therefore, it would be prudent of us to defer to Steve's expertise.
I watched a video right before this one that talked about judge McGinnis and not in a good light. Apparently he has a history of filing contempt charges with outrageous penalties. A lot of those have been overturned. He tried to give someone a 6 months jail time with $5,000 fee and a written and verbal apology to a guy that rolled his eyes. The person doing the video read the transcript of the the guy and the judge. Yes you're supposed to have a certain degree of professionalism in the courtroom but this judge was egging it on. Of course this got overturned.
@@patersonplankrd I understand he's an attorney. So am I. But I'm saying is is that he basically refused to criticize the judge in any way. He went out of his way to not criticize the judge. That seems very strange to me because this ruling was obviously borderline corrupt.
I remember back in the days of an email system called GroupWise, if two employees set auto-replies incorrectly, it would create a vicious cycle of "Reply All" and take down the entire email system. And then there was a time an employee sent a HUGE file to a coworker- but the coworker happened to be on vacation, so the email system was completely clogged until that file was downloaded.
Thanks for the update. That was a good judicial outcome. Hospital "A" was clearly wrong given its failure to even offer to match its departing "at will" employees matching salaries/benefits being offered by Hospital "B."
the brief by the lawyers for Assentation HC were on the ball....and I just came from Lawful Masses where he read that brief. Steve, thanks for the referral to Leo. French's channel many moons ago.
I'd imagine that this might well cause the other employees still at the hospital to dust off their resumes and start looking for a better job in terms of wage and treatment. Because who really wants to be working for a bunch of autocratic thugs who would try and pull something like this when their employees leave to work for a new employer?
I should say my mother is a stubborn woman also a RN. The new hires were getting more money than she was so she asked HR to bump up her pay. They said the pay scale was only for the new hires. Mom said I quit and I need an application. Needless to say mom received the new pay scale. This was in New Orleans at the Hotel Dew forgive my spelling.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the update! Such an infuriating story! Great to hear the proper ending. It was going to keep bothering me till I heard, as I keep getting reminded about it as other channels started picking it up today. Again, thanks!
Steve mentioned that maybe the motivation of company A was to scare the rest of the employees into staying. I think it will actually backfire and cause even more employees to leave because they have now seen how the hospital is more interested in suing rather than keeping valuable employees. What will probably wind up happening is that more good technicians, nurses and doctors will see that the grass is greener at hospital B and hospital A will be left with the dregs. Company A must reverse its mindset and show the remaining employees that they are valued by raising their pay, improving working conditions, and maybe setting up an employee representation committee before it's too late.
Not to mention word has already gotten around and all the nurses, techs, etc. who don't already work there will never work there unless they are starving, and then it will be a struggle. It is an employee's market in healthcare and these companies had best figure it out most ricky tick
I believe they will not. Hearing Leonard French read the opposition filing I get a sense they do not care to retain staff at all. They want their credentials and profit and if housekeeping are the ones providing medical care they are good with it just so long as profit keeps rolling in.
Andy, I don't think he has a Patreon account. He never mentions it, nor posts a link for it. But maybe I'm wrong. If he does I will subscribe also. And, I agree with you, he rocks in the explaining dep't. (He taught law for 10 years)
I'm trying to figure out how the judge can block anything about this when it's at will employment? Is there any other direction this could have gone really? I personally believe that the judge should be disciplined for going as far as he did. That was a clear violation regardless of the reasons the previous employer could have stated. If they had won, what, would the nurses be forced by law to work for the first company? How did it even go this far? It's ridiculous.
Playing "Devil's Advocate" here: The judge likely knew it wouldn't go anywhere. As Steve said, he was preserving the status quo until he could rule on it. It was only over the weekend, not for weeks and months.
This is so simple: If it's gonna mess you up if they leave, offer them what it takes to keep them from leaving. Hospital A is trying to cheap out on its employees, while Hospital B is willing to offer better compensation. At-will employment means the employees can walk. Where's the argument?
I'm confused... why if you have employees that are critical to your business do you not have a favourable contract for those employees? Having them as "at will" seems like an inexcusable risk.
Because that way you can threaten them with homelessness at the drop of a hat to keep them compliant with whatever bullshit you want. The US is teetering on the verge of a failed state with less than the bare minimum of social protections. You play by corporate's rules for you, or your kids don't eat this week.
2 роки тому+11
Hospital managers usually don't know shit about *actual* health care. All they see (because all they know) is numbers.
AT WILL is a state law. Who works under a contract? Not employees. And let's not talk about unions that are a waste of time and money to both sides except under certain trades, like construction.
@@no_peace I know! So was Stalin. He was very pro death penalty, he assigned work to millions, very pro central bank, and very pro large military! Communism is the worst when done from the right.
@@no_peace just for giggles what other economic model has the government assigning work? And officially tells people they can't decide where they work? What other economic model does that?
Makes me wonder, which Senior Executive thought that a lawsuit was the correct course of action? I’m sure the head of Legal dept told the executive that this was a losing effort.
This lawsuit will make it practically impossible for ThedaCare to hire replacement staff anytime soon. The lawsuit advertised the fact that they pay significantly less than the competition, and that they'll get vindictive when employees leave. They're going to lose their Level 2 certification as a result of being unable to hire qualified replacements.
Yup, and to boot they may very well have to pay lucrative perks and bonuses to attract replacement staff that when you factor in legal costs will put them more in the hole than had they simply matched salary for old staff. Lots of bad faith and they have demonstrated proficiency in making themselves look like asses.
I am surprised that they still have it.
They've demonstrated they're willing to spend money on everything but their employees.
This is a vindictive boss who is mad that 7 people quit and wanted to keep the other employees in line with fear. We all know this type of boss, the guy that stops by at 5:25 on a Friday or on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving then sends email asking questions to see what the employees will say and to take roll call. This is the boss who cares more about the people who brown-nose rather than people who are good at their job. Real people know all about this but judges, and many lawyers, are not real people.
They may not be able to hire qualified experience people but it will provide an opportunity for inexperience people to find a job and gain experience. Not really a good result. That does not mean those inexperience people are not qualified BUT they lack experience.
The injunction never should have been granted in the first place.
Exactly
I shake my head at the fact the hospital did not have money to pay their workers a competitive wage, yet have the money to sue the other hospital for "poaching".
They probably have it but still don't want to pay.
Or doctors (who universally make very good money, even the crappy ones) at the hospital could take a slight pay cut to get the nurses what they need.
Lawyers may be on retainer so no net new additional cost to sue.
@@randybugger3006How about the shareholders take a pay cut?
They didn't say they didn't have the money.
They said they were unwilling to match it.
I just let my nursing license expire in January - a few months shy of 15 years as an RN. That hospital administrators tried to pull this, does not surprise me. That the judge actually thought the employees would then be open to any compromise with that hospital actually did surprise me. If any facility administrators sued me for leaving my at-will job, there would be NO circumstances to ever entice me to work with them to “resolve” this.
I think he was actually expecting Hospital A to have a come-to-jesus moment and realize they were acting insane. Definitely wishful thinking on his part. A reasonable employer would never pull some bull like this in the first place.
@@StoutShako 100
I kind of wonder if the judge gave the order _just_ because he knew that it would fuck over the hospital in the long term. "You want me to do what? Wow, you guys sound like assholes. Sure, motion granted. You can have exactly what you wanted. I'm sure your PR and hiring teams are going to be absolutely thrilled when they hear about this."
As the saying goes, "People don't quit bad jobs. They quit bad managers/management."
I very intentionally resigned on labor day, effective immediately with no notice, because of bad managers!
And low wages
@@TheShubLub That's the bad management part.
The problem with 'at-will' hiring and firing laws is that even though it goes both ways (employee can also quit without notice), a lot of companies think 'at-will' is a one-way street in their favor and they could use it to bully and control their employees
Yes, but new employers will ask if they gave 2 weeks notice when the left. Also if you dont give 2 weeks notice, you will burn a bridge with that employer so you cant go back.
@N K but then you give a two week notice and then they terminate you immediately anyway 🤷♂️
@@GROGU123 Corporations are more then happy to fire at will with no regrets. They have zero fucks to give to walk anyone out the damn door on a moment's notice, because. And let's be real, if you are upset and ready to blow this crazy place, then freaking leave and be happy, you NEVER have to work there again! Far too many employers treat their employees like shit. Speak loudly by walking away to a better work/life!
@@deejayyy1681 then you go to your new employer and see if you can start earlier or collect your unemployment.
@@GROGU123 I'd answer such a question with, "I fired my employer in the same way they would fire me."
It came out in Monday's hearing, that all 7 employees where fired from hospital A (ThedaCare) on Jan 14. So it is obvious that they didn't need them. Also supported by other facts and actions. So it looks like all hospital A was doing is being vindictive against employees who leave to get better jobs. Likely violating labor laws, which leaves open a strong possibility of a counter suit.
The point was to make the OTHER employees think twice about leaving.
@@OneEyeShadow and had better think twice about ever going to work there to start with
So it's a non-compete agreement in function without an actual signed and agreed to non-compete agreement?
@@4gunslinger most judges from what I know will not honor a non-compete from a business. In the US we have free movement, work, commerce etc. The only time it would uphold is if you have company trade secrets that you are now exposing and causing harm to your previous company. It is simply a deterrent for you not to leave and if you do, for them to haggle you with court hearings etc. Some employers wont hire you because once they find out you had a non-compete they dont want your progress in working with them slowed down by hearings so they just avoid it all together they dont want to deal with it. If you are a nurse and for some reason need to move to another city or state for whatever reason what makes it legal for them to stop you from working. Nothing!
“I quit”
“You’re fired” doesn’t even work here. I sure hope every employee sues for wrongful termination because they had already quit! So their employment record is tarnished by the “you’re fired” vindictive behavior by Hospital A.
The judge should never have issued it, period.
"Poaching" other companies employees is a term invented by current employers who don't want to pay a market wage. Anti-poaching deals are collusion among employers to stifle wages and have usually been found illegal.
Happens here where I live in Upstate SC.
Not always, a company(A) could also do poaching to harm the company(B) they are poaching from, by taking key workers or enough of them, so that the company(B) no longer could function. Company(A) could be doing only to harm company(B), not because they needed the workers.
That was not the case here, as there was no poaching, just job listings those 7 sought out themselves.
Well to be fair poaching implies that the opposing employer went to the old employers business and made job offers. Which is kind of scummy no matter what side you're on, as opposed to going to the prospective employees home/mailing them a letter.
@@prayboy7812 "Poaching" means whatever the company who is getting poached wants it to mean. Usually what it really means is a company is offering a compensation package the current employer is unwilling to match. They attach the term "poaching" to imply something nefarious.
Even the term "poaching" assumes ownership. It's straight up bullshit.
On a side note: Never accept a matched offer to stay when you're trying to transition to a new job. You will not be there a year later... all you're doing is letting them buy time to replace you and honestly something made you seek a new job in the first place.
Been down that road. My employer was suddenly willing to pay me what I was worth to keep me after shortchanging me for my five years of employment... almost accepted their counter offer but thankfully moved on.
I agree 100%, although I've worked at some companies where you could "pull a holdup" one time without it triggering them to start training your replacement, or having you do so! It's possible in situations where the primary issue is money, typically caused by wage compression, past salary freezes, low average raises, etc. Even then, if everyone is underpaid, becoming the only one who's not underpaid, is a terrible idea. Just leave. But if it's from being a loyal employee who didn't leave during hard times for the company, and newer hires are paid better, coming up to parity is something you likely will not be retaliated against for. Nobody can expect you to not become a squeaky wheel when someone you just hired who reports to you, is making 20% more than you.
At a minimum, to consider staying in a holdup/match situation, there needs to be trust between you, your boss, their boss, the top HR person, and the top executive aware of the situation. If you and that bunch of people can't all comfortably shake hands and promise that bringing you up to market pay will not lead to repercussions from them or another holdup by you, it is far better to leave.
Exactly. Never, ever change your mind and stay, once you've told your employer you're quitting. They will screw you over any way they can; instead of leaving when you have a job to go to, they will dump you without the notice you gave them, and you will be stuck with nothing in train.
They were told by an ex employee about the pay rate. They were not unhappy where they were working they just wanted to make the same as they would else where. The employer said no then they decided to leave.
YES!!! People go out of their way to find another job than try and use it to bargain with their currently employer. That's dumb! AT WILL was established so that you COULD pursue a better job without any negative implications from your existing employer...and vice-versa.
As an RN, these type of cases are intriguing to me. I’ve worked in several environments and the nature of my particular role, I interact with other medical professionals from nearly all hospitals within a few hundred miles away (I’m a critical care transport nurse). I often contemplate jobs elsewhere but there is a complex of factors to consider before doing so. I could be paid more at other jobs BUT I would be placed under more daily stress. I also take into consideration how the different employers treat their employees. Seeing the legal attempt made by “Hospital A”, that would immediately rule out that hospital as a place I’d want to work. Anyone that is truly desired would also not to work there in the future too, meaning they will be stuck with people no one else wants. “Hospital A” has just committed figurative suicide.
How this usually plays out is they have to pay higher wages to first-time workers. The culture issue doesn't get addressed because the problem managers are still there, and now have even more easily molded workers.
But in the end, those workers will also jump ship. And their department becomes a "stepping stone" stuck overpaying for high turnover rate.
I've been one of those first time workers in a different industry that took that job. And then parlayed it into a better employer a year later once I had experience and references. At the time I was hired, they were using a tax scam to overpay -- claiming their entire workforce was "distant" / out of state and using untaxed per diem as half of our salary just to boost it above the competition.
The deal was, to maintain their lie, you had to take 1 month off after 11 months of work. And they were legit confused why every new employee found a different / better job in that month.
Also as Nurse i think its more about intimating and terrifying the other current employees. If you Leave we will come after you. Also you know all those people are most likely blacklisted.
@@dualkelly Good employers know the game and welcome those blacklisted. They have great staffing.
I sure as Hell wouldn't work for Hospital A, or ThedaCare to be more specific. It should be every healthcare worker's responsibility to make sure everyone knows about these companies.
@@dualkelly blacklisting is mostly a fallacy. I can't tell you how many times I knew of people terminated with strong recommendations against rehire in their employee files. Usually HR doesn't have time to look.
You nailed it….my son ,who is a nurse, told me he couldn’t believe how many nurse friends across the country were following this story…🤗
I am a nurse and the only reason anyone at my hospital knows anything about it is because I learned it here and mentioned it at work.
Im a nurse im working on a different country, and im sharing this story to every nurse i know so they can be aware if they ever have an offer from this company to give it a second thought.
Better believe we're watching and listening! Thanks for explaining it to Healthcare and other workers!
Screw hosp A. I'd look for employment elsewhere.
And every hospital with those nurses is sweating
I am a nurse. I can tell you that their ultimate goal was intimidation and keeping nurses in a position without providing anything additional. Not those nurses, mind you, most of the others. Their goal was to teach the nurses (and other HCP) that if you leave, you will have a huge legal bill and even if you win, it won't be worth it. ThedaCare is not the only Healthcare organization to think this way. And people wonder why people are leaving the profession in droves, why new nurses bail after their 2 year contract is up, and why people are retiring early.
Yup. I retired early.
Worked for this company. The intimidation of staff has deep roots in this company. They had a big law suit about 5 years ago...You would have thought they would have learned their lesson then...
Exactly! And if you try to get them to make things better, they push you out by giving you twice the workload for 'being a complainer'.
@@amzarnacht6710 dude, do you not realize that what ThedaCare is doing is what socialism is at it's core? Or that roads are easily something that local residents can either build themselves or hire a company to do? While local government is simply easier to organize to pay for roads they aren't the only way to do it.
He knows. This is just how the left operates.
Had I been an employee of hospital A, and witnessed this and I was even a slit bit unhappy, I would be looking to leave. Businesses that do not treat their workers with respect do not deserve to be in business.
I've spent 30+ years as an RN in the Operating Room. It's one hostile environment. The angriest, most controlling and dysfunctional people work in an OR. The egos are fantastic. There is a pecking order in each hierarchy. Those hierarchies include the RN, surgeons, scrub techs/LPNs, and anesthesia. One day this one is an idiot and the next day he's a genius. It's pretty messed up. Lemme give you a peek of the kinds of things that go on in surgery...
Upon getting my 88 year old female patient onto the OR table, I noticed she had a skin tear on her forearm. Tissue paper skin is fragile. You can almost take your thumb and take the skin back. When the surgeon came into the room I showed him the open wound and asked what dressing materials would he like me to apply. I told him I would fix her up while he was doing his surgical scrub. He told me not to. He was always a jerk but it is NOT my practice to proceed with surgery BEFORE attending an open wound! At the end of the case, again I inquired about dressing the wound. He said, "Goddamnit, she's a medicare patient and I won't even get paid a fourth for what I just did and they won't pay for that dressing either so "f*ck it" and f*u k medicare". I was so pissed I couldn't see straight. I walked right over to my cabinet and I selected the dressing materials and dressed the wound myself and I let the hospital eat it. I never put those materials on my patient charge sheet The other thing is--- you never hand off a patient to another nurse with an open wound! It's a liability and you could be reprimanded for neglect!
When hospitals do not stand up for the patient advocacy nurses and bend to the surgeons---it is no wonder that staff will find their way to the employment of another hospital who pays them more for the abuses suffered at the hands of administrative services. Problem is--- that hospital has an administration too and they all operate in like manner.
thank you
I've met doctors like that. Maybe they don't always think about money and maybe Medicare doesn't pay enough but they sure creep me out.
I have personally seen doctors kill patients out of arrogance and greed. Yes, I said kill. I managed to get one of them fired, but usually they just go on and kill more. All of this sh** is why I left healthcare.
It’s all about the money. M4A is what you need.
Thank you for being that medical professional that we need . God bless you.
Several employees leaving at the same time is almost always an indication of a bad work conditions.
I expect ThedaCare to have a significant loss of their nursing staff.
If this went permanent, it would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
Thedacare had no problem laying off other members of the team before these ones jumped ship.
@@edcrichton9457 It sounds like Theda don't care about it's employees, other than management.
Extremely dangerous for who? Clarification needed.
@@warrenbennett1863 If employers can get a legal injunction preventing employees from obtaining work elsewhere, it would allow employers to treat their employees horribly, leading to decline in work quality and output. So dangerous to everyone.
The threat to sue if one quits is the very reason to quit a organization like that and not a reason to stay in a hostile work environment. What a $#(! show of management.
It’s an “at will” state..the judge had no business doing anything but dismissing the tro as a frivolous lawsuit
Not if the judge thinks he is above the law.
I'm sure the judge knew that. It was a tactic to get the two parties to talk - obviously that didn't work out, thus it was lifted. Otherwise, it would have easily been challenged.
Here in Wisconsin we have out of control, lunatic liberal activist judges, so this comes as no surprise.
@@JasonTaylor-po5xc There was no talking to do. The matter was resolved within the bounds of the law before the judge ever got the paperwork.
Actually, the judge was spot on. As Steve explained, the judge attempted to persuade the parties to come to an agreement rather than engage in a court battle.
Thank You!! The first thing I thought was, "Indentured Servitude". How in hell would ThedaCare think a suit would be successful? And how in hell would they enforce it? I personally would go work as a restaurant dishwasher than go back to a company that did that just out of spite. If I lived in the area and could help it, I would never step foot in any of ThedaCare's facilities ever. And ThedaCare should fire any leadership involved and replace all their legal representation immediately as they are incompetent on multiple levels.
The judge had an allergic reaction to stupidity. He hoped that over the weekend an adult would get invovled.
They intended the lawsuit to be a warning to other employees that they would suffer if they chose to leave, too. Fortunately for human decency, it backfired. I agree with you that ThedaCare needs to overhaul their management, administration, and legal teams to become a non-shitty place to work if they want to recover. Nobody is going to want to work there unless they’re too awful or too green for everyone else, and patients won’t want to go to a hospital where they know the workers are demoralized and exhausted and no one wants to work there.
They are following the corrupt example of the Biden Administration!
as discussed, it wasn't about forcing those employees to come back and work. it was about making them hurt and send a message to everyone else. its close enough to union busting. you see those employees making noise, transfer them to a new position and set them up for failure. give them the expectation of performing a job that previously was performed by 2 or 3 people... Fire them for repeated inabilty to perform as expected. it didn't work out this time, but all that had to happen was the court case dragging on for 2 or more weeks
In a three judge panel ruling, then judge Gorsich in a dissenting opinion stated that employees were property of their employers. The truck driver in that case abandoned his disabled vehicle in sub freezing temperatures. Gorsich said the driver was required to stay and die. Now he’s a Supreme Court justice with a supermajority to make that opinion the law of the land.
@@grantkilbourne4573 Scary times we're living in...
"What right did the hospital have to sue the departing employees...probably none" But the judge went ahead and granted the TRO anyway. Therein lies the problem with the US legal system. Judges issuing unjustified rulings with no legal merit that impact peoples' lives. The judge should have said to the hospital (on Friday), "You have no legal grounds to justify a TRO. Come back if you can find a better argument. If you can't I will dismiss your suit and assign you to pay all costs to the other hospital and the employees." The fact that the judge did the right thing 3 days later just makes it a short term failure as opposed to a long term.
I HOPE THE HOSPITALS ATTORNEY GAVE THE HOSPITAL A HUGE BILL SAYING THAT HE WORKED ALL WEEKEND!!!!
Even the lives of future patients (dollars) shouldn't sway the judge or impede the will and choice of the workers. This country is in need of a revolution. For real.
Sue the Judge
So did you not listen? He told you why the judge ruled the way he did. They are JUDGES, they make a judgement based on factors in the law. Sheesh
@@mikealvord55 my point is that the judge's actions were those of a lawyer and a participant in a system of legal procedure rather than a system of justice. In a system of justice the TRO would never have happened. The first hospital would not have suffered irrevocable harm in those three days. They should not have been able to get a rubber-stamp TRO without showing at least a prima facie case in their favor coupled with significant harm that could not be redressed later.
A plaintiff should not be able to get a judge to restrain the actions of someone they want to sue just because they might have a case later.
So yes I did listen to the video I just disagree that it was an appropriate action if we truly value justice above legal technicalities.
You called it. Judge trying to force settlement. Suspect though he caught holy hell over the weekend.
already seen several videos on this judge. This is just the latest crap he's pulled
@@hungryjack8032 Those are the kind of judges who need to be disbarred.
@@hungryjack8032 I think it's going to cause a review of all his rulings
Now the former employees should sue Thedacare for filing a malicious lawsuit who's only purpose was to harm them.
"At Will" employment is a contract between the employer and employee...it's an "At Will" contract. Thedacare broke that contract by trying to deny the employees their "At Will" Rights.
They don't need to file a new lawsuit. Just ask for damages (costs, fees, any lost wages) in this one.
@@TheRealScooterGuy The employees weren't parties to the suit, so they can't do that.
@@JodyBruchon DOL might apply fines for retribution.
The former Hospital A employees would have to prove they were financially harmed by the suit against Hospital B.
Remember, the former Hospital A employees were not named as defendants.
@@JodyBruchon Thanks. Someone else besides myself in this thread is paying attention.
It's a shame they will pay lawyer's but not pay the people that deserve it
Just shows you really what they represent...profit over people. Without these RNs, they won't have that profit. Hospital A can hire some new talent...ohh wait, they are asking for the same amount of compensation as the RNs before. Hrmmmm....
I remember when the Governor of Wisconsin changed the state to at will,privilege to work,right to work what ever you want to call it. It basically gave rights to business to fire employees to get cheaper employees. But we are living in different times where employees are figuring out changing employers every few years gives you a better raise then being a loyal employee and now businesses are throwing a tantrum because the law they asked for isn’t working in their favor 🤦♂️
Bingo and that goes everywhere. I make good money but to get a raise I would have to go work for another company.
I agree with that 100 percent. I was fired from an at-will employer b4 because Ibwas looking for better employment.
As a Wisconsinite, I’m still pissed about that. Scott Wanker demonized state workers and the belly crawling creatures in the state government shoved through every anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-human trash law they could. Now that we have a Democratic governor, those same swamp dwelling invertebrates keep passing trash laws they know he’ll veto and pushing for more and more partisan control over elections and government accountability. They even got the state Supreme Court (conservative leaning) to say that any new congressional maps have to be “least change” from their disgustingly gerrymandered maps from a decade ago. There are intelligent, honorable Republicans who truly value US democracy. Unfortunately, they’re not in charge in Wisconsin.
Which is the whole point behind "at will" states. To many people allow themselves to feel forced, or bullied. When you're an "at will" employee, you have equal control over your employment status.
Its really more about the ability to join unions. It used to be required to join a business to also join a union. So the Rebublicans invented a backdoor union busting idea, "Right to work". Like here in Florida, we are not required to join a union by law...hence kneecapping unions by losing new signups and solidarity.
"We don't want to pay you what our competitors are offering. But we'll gladly spend that money on lawyers instead"
Right?
Right
Control and terrorism. Psychological warfare.
Good that the TRO was lifted but I still can't believe the lawsuit is going forward. Like, these people don't work for you anymore, what standing do you have? And should employers check to see what the going rate of a worker is before posting a job? What duty does one employer have to another when posting jobs and recruiting workers? Wouldn't it actually be illegal for these employers to fix wages?
The judge may be working on a smackdown -- and be giving ThedaCare the rope need to hang itself more completely. That would be a GoodThing(TM).
Yes, it is illegal for employers to collude to fix wages/working conditions. ThedaCare is using the courts to get the same thing. “Hire our workers for better wages and you’ll be spending money on lawsuits.”
Pretty typical corporate-“non-profit” in this case-abuse of people.
ThedaCare isn't suing the workers, they're suing Ascension.
@@timdowney6721 no it's not. It's only illegal for business to fix consumer prices. There is literally nothing against fixing salaries. Please stop making shit up
Boston nurses were going back and forth, hospital to hospital to get higher pay. Then hospitals colluded, not sure what happened and all the articles are gone
As I watched this it reminded me of a guy that claimed to have a substantial amount of money who wanted to buy in as a partner in my repair shop. I declined his request; I was happy doing everything myself. The next thing I knew was I got a letter that the property was for sale. In my lease (contract) I had first right of refusal. While I was happy with my business as it was, there was no way that I was going to be able to buy the property. The interested party was of course the guy that wanted to buy his way into my shop. I remember the empty feeling knowing that all he really wanted to do was take my business from me. I found myself with the choices of essentially ending up working for him, watching him simply take what I had created, or just shut it down. He only backed off with the purchase idea when I made it clear that by the time he would take ownership I and my business would have been long gone.
I watched this guy a little over a year later try to open a shop with another shop owner in the town only to rip him for tens of thousands of dollars in inventory and equipment and monies that went toward purchasing a building. It ended up in court and that shop owner even though he won still hasn't recovered what he lost.
There should be a class action lawsuit against Thetacare for the hours lost during the trial.
I still don't see how the judge could legally stop the employees from going to work on Monday. He should have made provisions for hospital #1 to pay them for any days lost if he ordered a TRO. NO JUDGE should have that kind of power to do what he did under the circumstances.
Agreed. He should also have ordered that ThetaCare had to pay them at the rate Ascension was offering.
He can't be was about to get spanked by a fed judge
@@LopingCSF Very good additional point! Wish I had thought of that!
Uh, apparently you haven't been watching the potato-in-chief writing 1000 laws via executive order. When government is just one big good ole' boys club, there are no consequences for exceeding your authority.
Yeh. That does seem to be the state of affairs these days. Do whatever you want and who is going to stop you. That is, if you are on the right side meaning the left side.@@theincantrix1144
I’m a R.N…over the years of my career I worked in several different hospitals. Gladly accepted lower pay to stay in a hospital I liked with management that treated employees with respect. Would have stayed much longer but they were forced by economic stresses to merge with the big guys in town…better pay and benefits but the crappy attitude of management was unbearable. Employees fought back and established the first R.N. Union in our area.
KAREN
Does RN stand for REALLY NUTS? Or are you a REAL NUT?
There's a truism in the employment world. Employees don't quit a job, they quit a shitty management organization.
@@bohemoth1 What was the point of this?
@@darbywing2
The entire medical profession is not as dedicated as it was decades ago. Nurses are not the same as they were decades ago. They are mean spirited and lack dedication and compassion. They are really nuts! Now run along MY CHILD.
@@bohemoth1 The only nut here is you. Health care professionals have the same rights as any other person to be paid a fair wage. We are not slaves! The employees in this matter are simply taking their dedication and compassion to another hospital. The for profit hospitals that have replaced the charities that used to provide hospital care are the source of 'mean spirited'-ness! People-even nurses!-are not property!
My kid brother is one of the seven and I can tell you he started his new job today, what a crazy situation
And?
Yay! Tell him congratulations!
That judge had NO RIGHT TO ISSUE THE T.R.O. IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! There was NO CONTRACT he was enforcing! It was ILLEGAL, what he did!!! At least he overturned it... But it never should've been issued.
And the hospital that sued? They should be forced to pay EVERYONE'S legal costs!!
This is why we need a loser-pays legal system. Period.
Uhhhh.... you do realize that 9 times out of 10, the person that loses is the little guy?
@@ineedhoez because they can’t afford a lawyer worth a damn. If we had a loser-pays legal system, their budget would be equal to the bigger party, because the bigger party would be footing the bill.
Loser-pays would end frivolous lawsuits and would protect people from big corporations and bigger governments ganging up on them.
It is just a hold, to allow a hearing to happen as soon as possible. Monday is not unreasonable.
The big losers, as you point out, are workers in general who now have their individual bargaining rights permanently weakened by the threat of litigation hanging over every decision to move to another employer for better pay and working conditions. The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off.
Nah, they gambled and lost. This would have indeed cowed other employees had it worked, but it failed and went viral. Management no longer holds the cards, employees who recognize this would be wise to be shuffling their deck right now.
Even though the court seems to be ruling to the employee's benefit? Go figure! :)
Not at all. Without the employees telling them where they were going, in trying to get a counter-offer, the hospital would have no one to even try to sue. As an employee, you just quit - without broadcasting why or where.
@@theincantrix1144 that may be true for most jobs but there could be info about training and qualifications in their HR files that needed to be transferred to hospital B. Someone in HR at Hosp A probably noticed “Holy crap I’ve done 7 file transfers to Hosp B in 2 days!”
@@AndyGeesGarage True enough, but it would at that point already have been moot. Since they would have no longer been employees of company A. Can't try to stop someone, who is already gone.
Another factor is not allowing the ex-employees from hospital 1 not to start their new jobs negatively affects patients at hospital 2.
Hospital 1 did retaliatory actions.. Or in common law
Fcked the employees over.
If they were that important to hospital A, why didn't they have a contract with the workers?
This ridiculous lawsuit shows the sad state of corporate medicine in the US. Most hospital systems care more about profit than they do about quality patient care or the quality of their employees providing the care.
Lol those of us in healthcare laugh at how little the public understand our for profit healthcare system.
Yet the 'socialised' medicine Canada, Europe and Australasia enjoy, with free/cheap access, fair wages, and controls on drug pricing, and much better health outcomes, are so often decried in the USA.
Employing key healthcare staff on zero-hours contracts is asking for trouble. Offer them proper contracts, make them a proper part of the team.
That's ridiculous that cuts profits....
You must be from the UK. Most employees here do not have contracts. None of their staff are working under contract.
@@oldpolishguy253 I'm in the US. Most people I know do have contracts, if they have enough time in a job it would be considered a career.
They are at will contracts which can be terminated by either party, but what they do contain is rate of compensation, travel, health benefits, 401 Plan's, vehicle allowance etc etc.
Virtually every hospital employee I know is under a contract.
The UK zero-hours contracts are like USA at-will contracts.......very little obligation for the employers....so quite similar.
But, they do not guarantee any specified number of weekly hours....hence the term "zero hours"
What is a zero hour contract? The employee agrees to work zero hours doesn’t make sense.
The lawyers from Ascension did a wonderful job breaking down Thedacare's actions. Thedacare had 2 weeks to replace the 7 employees. They changed their status so they could be put on the rota and then blocked access to work emails. That was constructive dismissal. The ex-employees offered their services to help during the transition. Due to this lawsuit, the ex-employees pretty much said they would never help Thedacare now. Thedacare even told Ascension they won't be re-routing patients their way.
Then Ascension showed how there hasn't been a critical failure of the care they provide due to the loss of these 7 ex-employees. Basically, what Thedacare said would happen, would actually happen if the judge granted Thedacare's request. That's because Ascension now offer that same Stroke care with these 7 employees.
They might take that stance now, but once they are sued by the family of someone who needed to be rerouted but was not due to spite. Thedacare is behaving like a tantrumming toddler.
We still have the finest justice that money can buy! Without money, don't worry about justice.
Tro should've never been put in first place. This case never being laughed out of court in the beginning is disgusting
Steve, you were on point for the law but you missed the real reason. Hospital A wasn't concerned about losing the employees, they can be replaced. What they were concerned about was losing the high revenue procedures the employees provided. When they say it isn't about the money, it always is.
I had to change doctors 3 times because my Dr. left ThedaCare. I ended up going to another health care provider.
Hospital A thought they had a right to prevent their employees from working someplace else. OOPS, they forgot slavery is not lawful in this country.
@@panagea2007 And yet, the judge had to think about it. Shows where this country has regressed to.
You are correct; but they are essentially one and the same. Of course they were protecting their revenue source, they weren't just hoping to see the faces of their favorite employees. If they could replace the employees they would not likely have lost the revenue from the procedures, except for the fact that they would be losing market share to the hiring hospital. This is somewhat of a closed system.
Exactly what I was thinking.
After I had a transfer approved to move to a different branch office within a company, the local branch manager at the one I worked at wouldn't let me transfer until she had two replacements to take my place which was NOT part of the agreement. I fought her actions for almost two months even using the union with zero results. Finally had to take my case to the CEO/owner and threaten with a lawsuit to finally get released to transfer. Basically I felt like I was being held hostage.
You were, from a bad manager.
The branch manager could have had no plan to hire anyone else, and had you languishing at your current office for several months. Rslash covered a story today from someone who was in a similar situation.
I would have fired you. You are not more valuable as an employee than the threat of massive legal fees and bad press.
@@theincantrix1144 say what? Her transfer was approved. The old manager is the one who should be fired, you cannot stop a transfer if the higher ups have approved it.
Wouldn't it have been quicker for you too find some applicants for her? I mean how many job site are out there? How hard would it have been to send a few dozen applicants her way? Surely a flood of what she requested would have seen you out the door much quicker.
My dad was a member of the Bar in Ohio until his death a few years ago. Watching your videos reminds me of years of past conversations with him regarding the law that I enjoyed to the fullest. I have always been an excellent student, however he would often tell me that although I had an excellent understanding of the Law itself I lacked the understanding of precedent. He told me a story of a prof putting a magazine sized book on the table saying "this is the law" and then placing an encyclopedia sized book on the table next to it and saying "this is the interpretation of that law". He would caution me that this gap in my education could get me into a mess. I miss him everyday and your videos make me reminiscent of the hours we spent conversing. Thank you for what you bring to the community and me personally.
The law is the law, until some judge decides that it isn't.
Stare Decisis is a huge problem in that some judges and lawyers, use it as an excuse to apply the law incorrectly simply because someone tortured the decision they wanted out of it.
@W S Tavis @George Ulicny Thank you both for the replies. Precedent is an endeavor to be consistent, not the opposite.
stare decisis
stâr′ē dĭ-sī′sĭs
noun
1 The doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decision making in a case involving similar facts.
2 The principle of following judicial precedent.
If judges and lawyers, use it as an excuse to apply the law incorrectly then they do so ignoring stare decisis not as a result of it.
Little tidbit, probably the most famous line in American judicial history is John Marshall writing that "[i]It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." _Marbury v. Madison,_ 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).
@@wstavis3135 Legal precedent goes a long way to un-muddy the waters and allows trials to either move forward or in the instance of a lack of Stare Decisis, allow a case to be dismissed or simply not heard.
Each one should sue the old hospital!!!!
I have one complaint about your analysis. Hospital A did not run to court right after they denied a counter offer. They ran to court nearly a month later the Thursday before the employees were scheduled to start their new jobs with Hospital B seeking a TRO to stop them from starting.
This is seriously basically them just putting tortuous interference and fair labors standards violations on pubic record.
Yeah, I just watched Leonard's stream as well.
This was certainly not tortuous interference - I’m not sure if there is a FLS violation here in that state.
He never said it was "right after". He just said "after". Friday was after the counter offer. Of course, I don't remember if anyone ever made clear exactly when the counter offer was declined.
I believe you all mean tortious. Tortuous is something full of twists and turns, which is kind of what this stupid case is.
@@michaeloleary6035 I'm no law expert, but, as the story has been presented, hospital A's actions seem to fit the wikipedia definition of tortious interference with a business relationship pretty clearly. Please explain how that is 'certainly' not the case. Am I missing some important connection here?
I think the only way ThedaCare can save face on this is for their board to make a public statement apologizing to Ascension, the employees, and the community, and confirms the management staff who reviewed offers and rejected to match has been counseled and the management team who decided to file this lawsuit have been terminated.
Total "Yup" to this.
Or, they just change their name, and hope no-one notices.
@@kruleworld They seem to be thinking that invoking the magic word "heath care" means that they are.....special
That won't happen, they will never admit wrong.
@@lizlagle671 True, but that wont stop them from tossing someone in management or a low level exec and lay the blame entirely on them.
With a very generous severance package of course.
So, not only does the first hospital advertise that they are a 'bad' place to work they are also letting prospective patients know to go to the other hospital!!
I have taken advantage of "at will" laws for my entire life. I have a set of very specialized skills. I often get asked during interviews, "why have you changed jobs so often?". The answernis always the same. I work in a developing field, and when I get a better offer, I go to the best offer. When the company I work for refuses to match the offer (some dumb HR rep always thinks its a bluff), I take the new job. I repeat the process again, if I get new offers. I dont exist to grow companies I do not own. I exist to take care of myself. I am financially responsible, so I can afford to give a compnay an ultimatim (pay me more or I quit). This attitude has led to quadrupaling my income in the past 5 years. I literally have "skills that pay bills", that few people have. I always hear the same excuse. "If other employees heard you make 3 times more than them, we would have issues.". I always answer the same. "Can any of those employees do what I do, or can you find anyone else who can?
I love the questions you get when you apply for jobs. Why am I applying here? Because you provide me something I want. If that changes, bye bye girl.
What skills do you have out of curiosity?
Yes!!!!! The American worker would have so much more leverage if we stopped buying stupid shit and having having $700 car payments. If we stopped living beyond our means, we could have the savings savings to take risks. We could impact policy changes with massive strikes by the general population because we've got money in the bank. Money is money is what makes the world go round and we keep giving all of our money to other people so we can have shiny things
@@ineedhoez exactly, also we probably would not be in any recessions either in my opinion. We get out of recessions and what do people do, slowly build debt back up, buy crap they dont need, borrow endlessly for everything until it all pops and comes crashing down. If you save, invest and clear out your obligations i.e debts, than you could afford almost anything.
Never take the matched offer. It's only to save time to find your replacement.
Should. This is a court of equity. Hospital A came to court with dirty hands. They are not entitled to remedy as the bad actor.
The whole thing should have ended when the employment was based on "at will" the first employer had the opportunity to employ on a more substantial contract but chose not to out of greed. They reaped what they sowed and got what they deserved.
It shouldn't have been granted to begin with and it was absolutely ridiculous that the judge allowed it as a bluff. Judge needs to be investigated for abuse of power for inappropriately using TROs to get out of actually doing their job.
Shouldn't have that TRO in the first place. It puts the 7 employees in limbo for the whole weekend which actually did harm
It's so nice to listen to someone who is honest, articulate, and uses common sense, thanks Steve!!
I don’t see any of the employees at TheaCare giving a notice before quitting. They’ll likely just up and leave when they get another job now.
Absolutely correct! It's an employees market. Current employees just saw how they will be treated if so.
The judge should be thrown from his post, too. He cost the workers and both hospitals completely unnecessary costs and possible patients of the new hospital their life...
While the judge lifted the TRO.Even placing it to begin with in this case was an affront to core constitutional principle !
I wonder how easy it will now be for hospital A to recruit replacements for the staff who have left? Who would want to work for them on an at will basis? I suspect they will end up having to offer contracts with minimum notice periods on both sides. They might well need to do that for a number of their existing at will employees, or risk losing them and will need to offer incentives for people to sign up to that. This whole going to court thing might end up costing them a lot of money because of the damage it will have done to their reputation as an employer. They will need to put extra incentives in place for people to want to work for them, particularly in a sector where there are staff shortages.
They may have to hire from over seas, like the Philippines or India were is an abundance of qualified medical staff and would work for less...its a fact wether we like it or not. Guarantee they are going to look at all options to save a buck!😐
Companies can always find scabs willing to work during labor disputes, so this will be no different.
they might even end up needing to offer more than it would have cost to outbid the other hospital. which I can live with, except they will raise their rates to protect their profit margin.
@@nodak81 Not in this environment. If you are a qualified health care worker, you will have your choice of job offers at a number of employers simply for walking in the door. Qualified health care workers would not choose to work for ThedaCare because those workers have the ability to get a job ANYWHERE... and ThedaCare has shown exactly what kind of employer they are, thorough this court action.
@@nodak81 I think you are missing my point. Hospital A is clearly not an organisation that treats its staff well. The technicians are highly skilled. There is a labour shortage in the area of work. There is no labour dispute going on. The people have left for other jobs. The hospital is going to have difficulty recruiting replacement staff because of all the damaging publicity they have received about the way they treat their staff. There is no need for anybody with the relevant skills to "scab" because they can easily find work with their skills.
The employees gave them a months notice. I'm sure that they could have hired locum replacements in that time, even if they couldn't recruit permanent staff. Of course that would have been expensive, so they went to court instead. Seems that they prefer to give their $$$ to lawyers rather than health professionals.
At-will employees aren't required to give any notice. This lawsuit is complete garbage, and I hope ThedaCare loses more employees and gets sued by those employees they affected with their nonsense.
NEVER give notice. The only "notice" I have ever given is when they "notice" that I'm gone.
@@LG123ABC LMAOOOOO good one!!!
MAKE THAT MAKE SENSE !!!
@@douglasrowland3722 It doesn't make sense. The hospital put themselves in a lose-lose position.
Even if the judge had, for some bizarre reason, granted their motion they still couldn't have forced the staff back to work for them.
Their lawyers will be happy though, as their bank their cheques.
Thank you so much for reporting this timely outcome!
So the judge was hoping the two corporate medical companies would collude against the employees over the weekend?
That ThedaCare filed this suit showed what kind of sorry excuses for human beings they are. No one will want to hire on with people like that in charge.
And THIS is exactly why I don't rent out my ballroom!
My sense was that this was a precedent that a company could use to break a strike, keeping employees in a position where they were wronged, but precedent said the action by their employer was legal. This was a very important case. I am glad the workers won and the temporary in junction was removed. I am not a lawyer, I am a third year student in the Facebook school of sounding like one.
The closing remarks won your case.
There was no precedent made, the judge simply upheld a longstanding precedent.
A closer example is, the employer decides to cease paying the workers completely, but wants the court to force them back to work.
F 1
"Break a strike"
WTF are you mumbling about, there was no strike and their is no union to bust. You obviously do not know what right to work means.
Even if this had established a precident, it couldnt really be used to break a strike. Striking workers cant be forced to work, and typically unions pay weekly sustenance money to keep workers from needing to work another job for the week or two most strikes last.
In before "Group of employees class action suit their prior employer for violating their Constitutional Rights through attempting to file a restraining order to conscript them from working for another company." They are still literally owed pay for every shift they were not allowed to engage in due to this TRO _AT THEIR NEW EMPLOYER'S PAY RATE_ by the prior employer.
If the hospital that tried to stop them from exercising their *contractual rights* thinks this was ok, they should probably have a federal investigation of employment practices done, starting with the execution of the contracts of the staffing management.
What contractual rights? The didn't sign a contract. WI is at-will.
From what I have heard from this and the last video, it takes a criminal to allow that TRO in the first place. Judges should know the law, but don't. That TRO should never have been allowed.
I would think this debacle leaves a bad taste for remaining employees and could result in a bigger exodus or at least reconsider position. That being any potential employers might be weary.
In 1970 I had a Fluid Dynamics teacher who had been an engineer at NASA. He said they were so desperate for workers that they offered new hires more than current employees. The employees were better off to quit and get rehired. Don't know if that really happened, but it was an option. Lots of work place happenings don't make sense.
Lots of places have done that. I'm speculating but they probably were counting on employees not noticing which they try to encourage by making policies against telling anyone what your pay is or not wanting to go through change when they are comfortable so they can more easily shortchange them. (Another thing done is to move old employees up to the new starting wage but you are still in the old raise rotation so the new person will exceed you in pay on their yearly while this is counted as the yearly raise so you have to wait a year plus the number of months for your next one).
Happens every day...Existing employees don't get a bump in pay until they start to hire new employees...
This is very common today.
About 16 years ago at a College I worked at they could not hire competent staff at the rate they were paying staff with 2+ years on site experience...They decided that it would be a smart idea to hire new people at about 5-10% more than the experienced staff were being paid.... Turn over increased to 50% every 3 months from the horrible 50% every 6 months.
Seen that recently. Employee could not get paid more when hired before graduating college, yet the degree gets more pay if hired with it. So, employee quit and hired with degree.
We can't match the offer but we have the money to hire a bunch of lawyers and tie up the courts! Sheeesh!
Judge should have laughed them out of his office to begin with
Thanks for the update. I've been waiting for this.
The judge was out of line, however, in saying he wanted them to work together on a transition. And the reason for that is because the employees didn't owe the former employer anything. Once they quit that was it, there's no continuing obligation. The judge was trying to force something he had no right to force.
This is correct. I'm not sure why Steve is being so deferential to the judge in this case.
Activist judges need reprimand
@@DracoSolon Steve is an attorney. Meaning, he knows much more about the law and how courts function than most of the people who post here. Including this poster.
Therefore, it would be prudent of us to defer to Steve's expertise.
I watched a video right before this one that talked about judge McGinnis and not in a good light. Apparently he has a history of filing contempt charges with outrageous penalties. A lot of those have been overturned. He tried to give someone a 6 months jail time with $5,000 fee and a written and verbal apology to a guy that rolled his eyes. The person doing the video read the transcript of the the guy and the judge. Yes you're supposed to have a certain degree of professionalism in the courtroom but this judge was egging it on. Of course this got overturned.
@@patersonplankrd I understand he's an attorney. So am I. But I'm saying is is that he basically refused to criticize the judge in any way. He went out of his way to not criticize the judge. That seems very strange to me because this ruling was obviously borderline corrupt.
I'm glad the judge did the right thing.
Gotta give credit where credit is due 👍👍👌👌
I imagine attorneys love meritless lawsuits because they get paid even when the case gets tossed.
Definitely a *sell-your-soul-to-Satan* practice.
Doing whatever it takes to avoid a thermonuclear email status is a good idea 🙌🙌🙌
Glad you’re keeping us informed .
I remember back in the days of an email system called GroupWise, if two employees set auto-replies incorrectly, it would create a vicious cycle of "Reply All" and take down the entire email system. And then there was a time an employee sent a HUGE file to a coworker- but the coworker happened to be on vacation, so the email system was completely clogged until that file was downloaded.
If I worked at hospital A, I would be looking for another job because what they did is as bad as a mandate!
Thank you for the update!
Thanks for the update. That was a good judicial outcome. Hospital "A" was clearly wrong given its failure to even offer to match its departing "at will" employees matching salaries/benefits being offered by Hospital "B."
I've seen hundreds of your videos, and I must say this is the most amped up I've ever seen you!
Tim - I noticed that.
the brief by the lawyers for Assentation HC were on the ball....and I just came from Lawful Masses where he read that brief. Steve, thanks for the referral to Leo. French's channel many moons ago.
Hospital A would rather pay lawyers than a fair wage to these employees. Something really wrong with that!!
I'd imagine that this might well cause the other employees still at the hospital to dust off their resumes and start looking for a better job in terms of wage and treatment. Because who really wants to be working for a bunch of autocratic thugs who would try and pull something like this when their employees leave to work for a new employer?
Poaching employee's is a time honored method of finding good people.
Good to hear
Thank you for your report
I should say my mother is a stubborn woman also a RN. The new hires were getting more money than she was so she asked HR to bump up her pay. They said the pay scale was only for the new hires. Mom said I quit and I need an application. Needless to say mom received the new pay scale. This was in New Orleans at the Hotel Dew forgive my spelling.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the update! Such an infuriating story! Great to hear the proper ending. It was going to keep bothering me till I heard, as I keep getting reminded about it as other channels started picking it up today.
Again, thanks!
Steve mentioned that maybe the motivation of company A was to scare the rest of the employees into staying. I think it will actually backfire and cause even more employees to leave because they have now seen how the hospital is more interested in suing rather than keeping valuable employees. What will probably wind up happening is that more good technicians, nurses and doctors will see that the grass is greener at hospital B and hospital A will be left with the dregs.
Company A must reverse its mindset and show the remaining employees that they are valued by raising their pay, improving working conditions, and maybe setting up an employee representation committee before it's too late.
Not to mention word has already gotten around and all the nurses, techs, etc. who don't already work there will never work there unless they are starving, and then it will be a struggle. It is an employee's market in healthcare and these companies had best figure it out most ricky tick
I believe they will not. Hearing Leonard French read the opposition filing I get a sense they do not care to retain staff at all. They want their credentials and profit and if housekeeping are the ones providing medical care they are good with it just so long as profit keeps rolling in.
TOO. LATE.
Theda Care needs to lose on this... they will hsve a recruitment issue now
That would be really smart. I don't think they're interested in doing that.
The judge never should have placed that order in the 1st place it's a right to work Issue
Thank you for covering this story. Its important for the workers to know what these companies think of them
You and Lenard French both called this one. Almost like lawyers understand how the system works.
Steve is doing the good Lord's work. I might subscribe to his Patreon. As a fellow Attorney, I wish I could explain things half as well as he does!
Andy, I don't think he has a Patreon account. He never mentions it, nor posts a link for it. But maybe I'm wrong. If he does I will subscribe also. And, I agree with you, he rocks in the explaining dep't. (He taught law for 10 years)
@@gotrythym yes I think you are right. Can’t blame him, someone would inevitably claim he is their lawyer lol
Everyone is going to leave that dump now.
Thank you Steve
Well this is great news, and we get a bonus episode today!
Agree, he stated his inbox was about to explode, so he’s also doing damage control.
I'm trying to figure out how the judge can block anything about this when it's at will employment? Is there any other direction this could have gone really? I personally believe that the judge should be disciplined for going as far as he did. That was a clear violation regardless of the reasons the previous employer could have stated. If they had won, what, would the nurses be forced by law to work for the first company? How did it even go this far? It's ridiculous.
Look at what is happening to employment in THIS country !!! THIS COUNTRY???
The whole system is made so the lawyers can bill as many hours as possible.
Yeah, he should be removed from the bench.
@@Joseph-Colin-EXP Yes, or at least significantly disciplined and asked to "retrain himself" on the law. It isn't supposed to be "the judge's whim"
Playing "Devil's Advocate" here: The judge likely knew it wouldn't go anywhere. As Steve said, he was preserving the status quo until he could rule on it. It was only over the weekend, not for weeks and months.
This is so simple: If it's gonna mess you up if they leave, offer them what it takes to keep them from leaving. Hospital A is trying to cheap out on its employees, while Hospital B is willing to offer better compensation. At-will employment means the employees can walk. Where's the argument?
I appreciate your insight .... super valuable with loads of wisdom ...
I'm confused... why if you have employees that are critical to your business do you not have a favourable contract for those employees?
Having them as "at will" seems like an inexcusable risk.
Because that way you can threaten them with homelessness at the drop of a hat to keep them compliant with whatever bullshit you want. The US is teetering on the verge of a failed state with less than the bare minimum of social protections. You play by corporate's rules for you, or your kids don't eat this week.
Hospital managers usually don't know shit about *actual* health care. All they see (because all they know) is numbers.
Yea but it probably keeps wages low so that the CEO and higher ups can hit their quotas for bonuses.
AT WILL is a state law. Who works under a contract? Not employees. And let's not talk about unions that are a waste of time and money to both sides except under certain trades, like construction.
Because if someone with better qualifications becomes available you don't have to break a contract to make room for them.
Thanks for the update. I can't for the life of me figure out what jurisdiction the Judge thought he has in an at-will employment state.
The judge is clearly a communist. He thinks the state can assign work. That's bold communism.
@@greorbowlfinder7078 he's a right winger lol
@@no_peace I know! So was Stalin. He was very pro death penalty, he assigned work to millions, very pro central bank, and very pro large military! Communism is the worst when done from the right.
@@no_peace just for giggles what other economic model has the government assigning work? And officially tells people they can't decide where they work? What other economic model does that?
Makes me wonder, which Senior Executive thought that a lawsuit was the correct course of action? I’m sure the head of Legal dept told the executive that this was a losing effort.
Thanks for highlighting these things.