34965 pts ยท November 25, 2012
That said it was a temporary injunction over the weekend until Monday, the judge hoped they would sort it out themselves.
correct, original hospital is just a bully, they aren't benefitting and the patients at the new hospital are not getting the service either
It was really lose-lose. Neither hospital's patients can be helped with the injunction, and the old hospital isnt benefitting, just bullies
True, it was just an injuction over the weekend for the hearing on Monday. Probably to get the Hospitals to work it out themselves.
But this doesnt make sense for employees not under contract at all. The only thing is they are healthcare and patients depend on them.
A judge can rule that no one can use the venue that weekend if the original renter can't
Like if someone contracts a venue to host a wedding reception. But the owner cancels the contract when someone else says they will pay more.
injunctions like this are usually for when someone breaks a contract for profit.
They can quit, they just can't work at the new place. Until its reviewed on monday.
But they arent forced to work there, just cant work at the new place, so they are hurting both hospitals, and the employees.
It is. Its based on playing on fears it will endanger potential critical patients. They deal with stroke blood work.
There's nothing forcing them to work at old place, so no one is benefiting from this. So its very silly.
This seems like the most reasonable option. Just get fired at the old place.
They arent being forced to work at the old place, just cant work at the new place. So not benefiting anyone.
Well new employer is filing counter lawsuit. So its not just the employees on their own here. And its not likely to hold up after pressure
But this is shaky reasoning when they didnt find replacements or choose to meet new employers benefits. They went straight to lawsuit.
and its likely the old hospital will be penalized or forced to pay backwages if they don't settle.
to the judge's benefit, this is only a temporary injunction until monday. he probably hoped they'd work it out over the weekend.
it shouldnt have been an issue period. but they argued patient lives were potentially at stake.
So old hospital does not have a leg to stand on and will probably be dismissed monday, and get penalized.
the only mitigating thing is patient lives. But the old hospital chose lawsuit instead of employee raises or hiring new employees.
This is standard for broken contract disputes, but At-Will is At-Will. Shouldn't be an issue period.
except at-will work is promoted by Republicans. And this is about two businesses with the employees caught in the middle.
Well in this case they are restrained from working at new place but arent forced to work at the old. So old hospital really hurt themselves
Republicans support At-Will work laws so they will probably be opposed to this ruling, and support the new employer
its a temporary restraint until its reviewed on Monday. Probably the judge was hoping the two hospitals would work it out over the weekend.
No, the business they were hired at is fighting back with their own lawsuit.
But thats questionable and nonsense, since they gave notice they were quitting and employer chose lawsuit instead of hiring replacements.
This isnt unheard of when dealing with contracts, but they didnt have any. only mitigating factor is its health care and lives are at stake
There is a temporary injunction until reviewed on Monday. They're barred from working at new company, but not forced to work at the old one
That said it was a temporary injunction over the weekend until Monday, the judge hoped they would sort it out themselves.
correct, original hospital is just a bully, they aren't benefitting and the patients at the new hospital are not getting the service either
It was really lose-lose. Neither hospital's patients can be helped with the injunction, and the old hospital isnt benefitting, just bullies
True, it was just an injuction over the weekend for the hearing on Monday. Probably to get the Hospitals to work it out themselves.
But this doesnt make sense for employees not under contract at all. The only thing is they are healthcare and patients depend on them.
A judge can rule that no one can use the venue that weekend if the original renter can't
Like if someone contracts a venue to host a wedding reception. But the owner cancels the contract when someone else says they will pay more.
injunctions like this are usually for when someone breaks a contract for profit.
They can quit, they just can't work at the new place. Until its reviewed on monday.
But they arent forced to work there, just cant work at the new place, so they are hurting both hospitals, and the employees.
It is. Its based on playing on fears it will endanger potential critical patients. They deal with stroke blood work.
There's nothing forcing them to work at old place, so no one is benefiting from this. So its very silly.
This seems like the most reasonable option. Just get fired at the old place.
They arent being forced to work at the old place, just cant work at the new place. So not benefiting anyone.
Well new employer is filing counter lawsuit. So its not just the employees on their own here. And its not likely to hold up after pressure
But this is shaky reasoning when they didnt find replacements or choose to meet new employers benefits. They went straight to lawsuit.
and its likely the old hospital will be penalized or forced to pay backwages if they don't settle.
to the judge's benefit, this is only a temporary injunction until monday. he probably hoped they'd work it out over the weekend.
it shouldnt have been an issue period. but they argued patient lives were potentially at stake.
So old hospital does not have a leg to stand on and will probably be dismissed monday, and get penalized.
the only mitigating thing is patient lives. But the old hospital chose lawsuit instead of employee raises or hiring new employees.
This is standard for broken contract disputes, but At-Will is At-Will. Shouldn't be an issue period.
except at-will work is promoted by Republicans. And this is about two businesses with the employees caught in the middle.
Well in this case they are restrained from working at new place but arent forced to work at the old. So old hospital really hurt themselves
Republicans support At-Will work laws so they will probably be opposed to this ruling, and support the new employer
its a temporary restraint until its reviewed on Monday. Probably the judge was hoping the two hospitals would work it out over the weekend.
No, the business they were hired at is fighting back with their own lawsuit.
But thats questionable and nonsense, since they gave notice they were quitting and employer chose lawsuit instead of hiring replacements.
This isnt unheard of when dealing with contracts, but they didnt have any. only mitigating factor is its health care and lives are at stake
There is a temporary injunction until reviewed on Monday. They're barred from working at new company, but not forced to work at the old one