So much for a free market economy (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

Eeyore

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
463
Reaction score
737
Age
52
Location
Indiana
Offline

Maxp

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
397
Reaction score
621
Offline
I'm not sure how this is even possible. The hospital staff are at will employees, that's it. Now companies are getting legal protection for terrible HR decisions?
 

tigerfan

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
61
Reaction score
27
Age
43
Location
new orleans
Offline
Just playing devil’s advocate: if UMC-New Orleans suddenly had a similar group leave all at once, it would be unable to provide level 1 trauma services to the city. And it is the only hospital that can do so.

In this case, perhaps there are no other comparable stroke center alternatives (I do not know the region); but it sounds like the hospital the employees are leaving for does not offer the same level of stroke service. I get why the community/government/judiciary could take the position that the employee move posed a health risk for the community. Again, just being devil’s advocate only
 

Dragon

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
885
Reaction score
1,582
Age
60
Location
Elsinore,Denmark
Offline
Just playing devil’s advocate: if UMC-New Orleans suddenly had a similar group leave all at once, it would be unable to provide level 1 trauma services to the city. And it is the only hospital that can do so.

In this case, perhaps there are no other comparable stroke center alternatives (I do not know the region); but it sounds like the hospital the employees are leaving for does not offer the same level of stroke service. I get why the community/government/judiciary could take the position that the employee move posed a health risk for the community. Again, just being devil’s advocate only


So you are saying that in this case the safety and health of the communtity overrules the personal freedom? How does that differ from Mask and Vaxx mandates where you think the opposite ?
 

Maxp

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
397
Reaction score
621
Offline
There is no public guarantee of a certain level of trauma care. Furthermore, the hospital had ample time to match or better the offer its employees received or hire new people. As usual, the employer didn't want to pay market wages.
 

tigerfan

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
61
Reaction score
27
Age
43
Location
new orleans
Offline
So you are saying that in this case the safety and health of the communtity overrules the personal freedom? How does that differ from Mask and Vaxx mandates where you think the opposite ?
Nope I didn’t say that. And nope I never said any of that. Wtf are you talking about?
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
860
Reaction score
1,156
Age
43
Location
Minnesota
Offline
Just playing devil’s advocate: if UMC-New Orleans suddenly had a similar group leave all at once, it would be unable to provide level 1 trauma services to the city. And it is the only hospital that can do so.

In this case, perhaps there are no other comparable stroke center alternatives (I do not know the region); but it sounds like the hospital the employees are leaving for does not offer the same level of stroke service. I get why the community/government/judiciary could take the position that the employee move posed a health risk for the community. Again, just being devil’s advocate only

This is what happens in a for-profit healthcare system. When you introduce the free market into healthcare there must be winners, and losers? You can't force people into slavery because you're bad at capitalism.
 

xpuma20x

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
115
Reaction score
175
Age
44
Location
Monroe, LA
Offline
Yeah I don't see how this judge's response will be upheld. The only way I can see it happening is if they were on a contract and were breaking the contract to work somewhere else. Even then, lets say they decide not to show up for work, is the judge going to put them in jail for not showing up to work? That would be counterproductive to the idea that they need someone there for the safety of the public. I suppose they could implement a fine, though again if they aren't under contract and that's not part of the contract they signed, it'd be illegal for them to get fined for it.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
2,802
Age
46
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
What is even dumber is WI is an At Will (Right to Work) state.

They can fire you for any reason without any repercussions. But you wanna leave for better pay and benefits? Woah that isn’t fair!

And let me go ahead and pass on receiving medical care from someone being forced to work against their will.

Who cares if they can’t staff a hospital- that is their fault. Their patients will let the market decide and either go to a different hospital (if their insurance allows it) or die waiting.

Capitalism is the best
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
10,933
Reaction score
15,941
Location
Midwest
Offline
I don’t think this argument (that it’s in the public interest) will hold water. The designations talked about aren’t binding, I don’t think. Patients needing those services could be routed to the hospital where those employees go, regardless of the designation levels. It sounds like the employees were not under contract, so this seems like a bad decision by the judge.
 

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
3,645
Age
47
Location
San Antonio
Offline
You guys are way to optimistic/confident about the judiciary in this country. The judiciary in this country bends over backwards to give employers what they want, it's hardly unbiased. I'm sure the judge and appellate court will find a way to rule in this employers favor. "At Will" employment has always been for the employers advantage, not the employees.
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
860
Reaction score
1,156
Age
43
Location
Minnesota
Offline
You guys are way to optimistic/confident about the judiciary in this country. The judiciary in this country bends over backwards to give employers what they want, it's hardly unbiased. I'm sure the judge and appellate court will find a way to rule in this employers favor. "At Will" employment has always been for the employers advantage, not the employees.

Honestly, when I first read the story, I was like what kind of relationship does this judge have with the hospital? What made them think they could sue and win to begin with?
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
2,309
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Nope I didn’t say that. And nope I never said any of that. Wtf are you talking about?

That's exactly what you rationalized as devil's advocate, yes.

I'll say, I was expecting decrying the trampling of the workers' freedom, rather than a rationalization of the decision by the judge.
 

dtc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
1,234
Age
54
Location
Florida
Offline
The case was dismissed today. The healthcare workers can now go to work at their new job.

And tomorrow a similar constitutional ammendment will be introduced in Florida to overwhelming support from the right.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom