Poll of the Day > Hospital sues employees who quit loses case

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-24/wisconsin-hospital-sued-workers-for-quitting-thedacare

Well yea slave labor is illegal.

Am I reading this right?

So instead of making a counter offer, they just sued with the mindset of: "we own your asses"?

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Am I reading this right?

So instead of making a counter offer, they just sued with the mindset of: "we own your asses"?

Pretty much. It sounds like their new employer refused to coordinate any kind of transition plan that would lessen the impact of them leaving, so the blame isn't entirely on the first hospital, but it doesn't sound like they worked particularly hard to make the doctors want to stay.

adjl posted...

It sounds like their new employer refused to coordinate any kind of transition plan that would lessen the impact of them leaving, so the blame isn't entirely on the first hospital,

Only if the second hospital was aware the doctors had a prior job and still expected them to be available right away.

That's one way to thank the essential front line workers..

adjl posted...

Pretty much. It sounds like their new employer refused to coordinate any kind of transition plan that would lessen the impact of them leaving, so the blame isn't entirely on the first hospital, but it doesn't sound like they worked particularly hard to make the doctors want to stay.

When is it ever the case that a new employer needs to ensure the old employer has adequate staffing?

Jen0125 posted...

When is it ever the case that a new employer needs to ensure the old employer has adequate staffing?

And even then, sue the new employer, not the ex-employee

Jen0125 posted...

When is it ever the case that a new employer needs to ensure the old employer has adequate staffing?

A case can be made for it when literal lives are on the line (the same reason essential services like medicine are often limited in what job actions they can take). Whether it's a legal requirement or not, it's definitely a moral one. Heck, I'd argue that the new hospital has a moral obligation to not hire these doctors because they are willing to endanger their old patients by abandoning the other hospital with inadequate warning, suggesting that they'll do the same in the future whenever they get a better offer.

I don't believe doctors should be forced to tolerate a hostile or poor work environment just for the sake of the employer. If the hospital doesn't want to be left inadequately staffed and unable to provide life saving and maintaining services they should have a better work environment.

If states want to be at-will it works both ways.

What idiot thought that lawsuit was a good idea. Of course they were going to lose that.

I mean, the whole thing is crazy but when you look into the details of it you can kind of see where they were coming from. The first hospital is a regional non-profit and the second hospital is the second largest hospital network in the country, so they were likely never going to be able to make matching offer. These also weren't just random employees, they were 7 out of 11 members of a cardiovascular critical care team, so they essentially headhunted an entire specialty unit from another hospital without any regard for the patients involved.

So yeah, dick move to sue your own employees and it was never going to work, but it definitely comes off as more of a panic move than a legitimate 'You can't quit' move.

Jen0125 posted...

I don't believe doctors should be forced to tolerate a hostile or poor work environment just for the sake of the employer.

They shouldn't be forced for the sake of the employer. They should be forced for the sake of the patients. The employer can go fellate a cactus, for all I care.

Legally speaking (since, as we all know, the only way corporations like this behave morally is if it's illegal not to), I think the best course of action would be something like requiring two weeks' notice from the departing staff (as opposed to it just being courteous to provide that and not a legal requirement), then after those two weeks, requiring the old hospital to pay them their new salary for up to two additional weeks or until the positions are staffed (whichever happens first). If that month isn't enough to find replacements, that's their failure and the new employer has done their due diligence to protect the old hospital's patients, especially where they've had the opportunity to reduce intake to accommodate their staffing shortage. Toss in some extra legal recourse for any hostile treatment the doctors face in that transitional period, and you'd be more or less good.

Of course, all of this is only a problem because for-profit medicine is inherently a broken concept, but we'll assume we aren't going to get past that.

adjl posted...

Of course, all of this is only a problem because for-profit medicine is inherently a broken concept, but we'll assume we aren't going to get past that.

This is the crux of the issue.

I could be wrong - but I believe Wisconsin is a Right to Work state. That means you can terminate from either side at any time.

the employees gave plenty of notice, they handed in their resignation in december and were scheduled to start this monday.
they weren't headhunted, 1 member of the team wasn't happy at the hospital and decided to get a job at the other hospital, and when the other members of the team realized the pay, benefits, and hours at the other hospital were better most of them decided to apply for a job there too(that hospital didn't approach them, or even knew they were all part of the same team, and they all independently decided to apply)

the hospital's response to their timely notice was not to counter offer or hire new employees, but to cut their hours to 0, lock them out of their accounts, and then sue the new employer to stop the hiring(while not allowing the employees to do their old jobs!)

patients also weren't the issue.
they were moving to a nearby hospital, and due to the nature of their job they didn't have scheduled patients that would be inconvenienced by their absence.

even dr. kelso wouldn't do that