Wisconsin Judge Rules 7 Health Care Workers Cannot Switch Jobs(mishtalk.com)
mishtalk.com
Wisconsin Judge Rules 7 Health Care Workers Cannot Switch Jobs
https://mishtalk.com/economics/wisconsin-judge-amazingly-rules-7-health-care-workers-cannot-switch-jobs
66 comments
I don't think they are even claiming they were "unlawfully poached" (which is an extremely high legal bar for at will employees without a non-compete contract) just that they are seeking 90 more days to find replacements which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/health/2022/01/20/th...
The judge can't force them to work for the original provider. That'd be slavery.
Not de jure but he can de facto.
If you have bills to pay and a family to support, you can't just quit a job without another income stream set up.
If you have bills to pay and a family to support, you can't just quit a job without another income stream set up.
Yeah, but when you become internet famous in certain circles then the income stream appears. Within hours of this hitting various sub-reddits a gufundme was in place (https://www.gofundme.com/f/thedacare-exemployee-support-fund...) and has pulled in almost 60K to cover these workers for the period in which they will not be working for their former employer, just in case the order is not overturned in the next 24 hours.
60k doesnt cover their loss though. Not for 7 people, who all have professional salaries and expenses. Who likely dont have another job opportunity for same profession without uprooting their lives other than the other job they tried to take. (how many radiology labs are actively hiring 7 people in any city at a moment?)
It may cover it for a month. Where they have to hope that they can one day work for this new company (if the judge allows it, and judges will often dig their heels in and drag things out if they get caught out like this). Or they can keep doing what they are doing now. What do normal people with kids and mortgages choose?
It may cover it for a month. Where they have to hope that they can one day work for this new company (if the judge allows it, and judges will often dig their heels in and drag things out if they get caught out like this). Or they can keep doing what they are doing now. What do normal people with kids and mortgages choose?
Even assuming no more money comes in and the judge's order stands in a month there would be nothing preventing them from going to work at ThedaCare again at such a point instead of doing so immediately. After all the lawsuit is literally to try to keep them from leaving not actually about where it is they are going to.
My guess is the money they'll get will actually outlive the order anyways though, but there is no risk if it doesn't.
My guess is the money they'll get will actually outlive the order anyways though, but there is no risk if it doesn't.
America is a system of judicial supremacy. Judges can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. If you complain, they can hold you in contempt of court and jail you indefinitely.
I can't even remember the last time a judge was actually impeached.
I can't even remember the last time a judge was actually impeached.
This is true, and it's why Republicans spent the last 40 years getting the federal courts, and then the Supreme Court loaded with partisan ideologues. For example, proposed laws to limit abortions fail in a lot of places: the majority of the population favors access to abortions. The Republicans got a Supreme Court that will judicially do what would be legislative suicide.
There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially.
There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially.
> For example, proposed laws to limit abortions fail in a lot of places: the majority of the population favors access to abortions. The Republicans got a Supreme Court that will judicially do what would be legislative suicide.
It's more complicated than that. You certainly have states where the majority of the population doesn't favor abortion access or doesn't care that much, and all any conceivable Supreme Court decision will do is allow the state legislators in those areas to legislate in ways the local population accepts, which won't be political suicide for them. That much is a fact, because restricting abortion access (regardless if it stands or not) has been a winning issue for those legislators for a decade or more.
> There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially.
What you say would be true if the US was a "unitary" government, with non-geographic elections (e.g. by party list), but that's just not how it's structured.
It's more complicated than that. You certainly have states where the majority of the population doesn't favor abortion access or doesn't care that much, and all any conceivable Supreme Court decision will do is allow the state legislators in those areas to legislate in ways the local population accepts, which won't be political suicide for them. That much is a fact, because restricting abortion access (regardless if it stands or not) has been a winning issue for those legislators for a decade or more.
> There's a ton of other issues that are like this, from marriage equality to drug de-criminalization to "intellectual property" to regressive taxing that would be legislatively impossible (Republicans losing power) but will almost certainly be accomplished judicially.
What you say would be true if the US was a "unitary" government, with non-geographic elections (e.g. by party list), but that's just not how it's structured.
If what I say isn't true, why have national-level Republicans worked so hard to get a very ideological SCOTUS? I mean, McConnell holding an open seat after Scalia's death for months, and then ramming Coney Barrett through in just weeks makes me very skeptical that a conservative SCOTUS wasn't important.
Sure, the US has built-in geographic divisions, and the states do voting very differently. Yes, a few states (southern, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) will outlaw abortion given half a chance, but the rest of the issues I noted are hot-button for some small fraction of some states, but are pretty popular in the rest of the states. If Republicans somehow got national legislation to repress marijuana again, for example, they would lose a lot of regions leading to loss of national dominance.
Sure, the US has built-in geographic divisions, and the states do voting very differently. Yes, a few states (southern, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) will outlaw abortion given half a chance, but the rest of the issues I noted are hot-button for some small fraction of some states, but are pretty popular in the rest of the states. If Republicans somehow got national legislation to repress marijuana again, for example, they would lose a lot of regions leading to loss of national dominance.
Abortion permissibility was itself a result of judicial supremacy. The majority of the population favors restrictions on what is currently allowed federally.
“Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.”
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti...
Please don’t assert false facts, especially when the truth is a Google query away.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti...
Please don’t assert false facts, especially when the truth is a Google query away.
I didn't say they supported making it illegal. I said they supported restrictions on the current level of permissibility:
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-support-abortion-...
> In fact, a majority of pro-choice respondents said they would limit abortion to the first three months of pregnancy, the so-called hard cases, or not at all
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-support-abortion-...
> In fact, a majority of pro-choice respondents said they would limit abortion to the first three months of pregnancy, the so-called hard cases, or not at all
Depends. Some judges can be threaten. This had happened many times and quite obvious during 2020 riots in America and elections. Also, the keys to judicial "edicts" lie at the prosecutors. If you have low quality prosecutors or death-targeted prosecutors' family members, then judicial can't funxtion properly. Look up how Scott Peterson got convicted purely on circumstancial proof including "he doesn't act the way we expected him to". I do expect assassinations of judges will be more common in decades to come. It is important congress to ensure judges have good statistic of being punished if misconduct.
Didnt they get the injunction literally a few days before they were supposed to start? After the workers gave reasonable notice and invited a counter offer? Why didnt they get the injunction immediately?
How can a worker be "unlawfully poached" again? Non competes are illegal in the vast majority of cases without consideration involved.
How can a worker be "unlawfully poached" again? Non competes are illegal in the vast majority of cases without consideration involved.
> The workers certainly can switch jobs, but they (temporarily) can’t go to work for a specific provider being accused of unlawfully poaching them.
This make me angry, why is there a law that prevents individuals from going to work for a competitor offering what is probably better pay and advantages? They are not slaves, they should be able to just leave and not look back.
Why do you need a law against poaching employees? Maybe try paying them more so they won't be interested in jumping ship? The level of mental gymnastics used here is offensive.
This make me angry, why is there a law that prevents individuals from going to work for a competitor offering what is probably better pay and advantages? They are not slaves, they should be able to just leave and not look back.
Why do you need a law against poaching employees? Maybe try paying them more so they won't be interested in jumping ship? The level of mental gymnastics used here is offensive.
The word “poach” itself is problematic and insulting, and we should not use it. As a worker, I am not some deer or other wild game, being “stolen” from the land of a feudal lord. I have agency and may voluntarily switch among employers as I wish. “Poached” implies ownership that doesn’t exist.
Exactly, work is basically trading your time for money, if someone is paying more for your time you switch and that's it. The idea that your current employer is somehow entitled to your loyalty is already a ridiculous concept, but having the courts enforce it is insulting.
I would save or redirect the anger, it is unclear if any such law even exists.
How does the original hospital even have a leg to stand on? I didn't realize that it was even possible to "unlawfully poach" an employee.
Reading this article, my first reaction is surprise at a ruling that, on the surface, appears to block people from switching jobs.
That's weird right? I think most people would be surprised and confused to hear that, because it sounds bad and wrong.
My next reaction is curiosity, a desire to know how such a strange ruling could make sense in the mind of the judge. Judges, of course, don't think they are making an obviously incorrect ruling, otherwise they would rule a different way.
However, this article makes no attempt unwrap the situation and present the judge's reasons and rationale, and doesn't link to the court documents.
I don't think this article benefits from not presenting the rationale. In fact, I think it fails to address the glaringly obvious followup question "that sounds so weird, why did the judge rule that way?"
My next reaction is curiosity, a desire to know how such a strange ruling could make sense in the mind of the judge. Judges, of course, don't think they are making an obviously incorrect ruling, otherwise they would rule a different way.
However, this article makes no attempt unwrap the situation and present the judge's reasons and rationale, and doesn't link to the court documents.
I don't think this article benefits from not presenting the rationale. In fact, I think it fails to address the glaringly obvious followup question "that sounds so weird, why did the judge rule that way?"
As medical workers, there failure to be replaced could mean an emergency room has to shut down. (or can't provide radiology services, so no x rays for broken legs)
Its my understanding that as a doctor or nurse, you decide that after working 60 hours that week you want to just quit on the spot and try to find a different job due to being overworked you effectively cannot without severe legal consequences ( I dont THINK they can get jail time but they could lose their medical license for sure) unless someone is present to relieve you.
I dont AGREE with any of that, but there is some thread of rationale there.
Its my understanding that as a doctor or nurse, you decide that after working 60 hours that week you want to just quit on the spot and try to find a different job due to being overworked you effectively cannot without severe legal consequences ( I dont THINK they can get jail time but they could lose their medical license for sure) unless someone is present to relieve you.
I dont AGREE with any of that, but there is some thread of rationale there.
One can make a hypothetical where such an injunction might make sense.
Imagine a sufficiently funded company (like google) wants to buy you or put you out of business. They could intentionally hire your staff and pay them to twiddle their thumbs, and hire your new staff when you replace them until you fold.
This strategy of specifically targeting their workforce to put them out of business would be unethical, but I don't know if it runs afoul of business law.
Imagine a sufficiently funded company (like google) wants to buy you or put you out of business. They could intentionally hire your staff and pay them to twiddle their thumbs, and hire your new staff when you replace them until you fold.
This strategy of specifically targeting their workforce to put them out of business would be unethical, but I don't know if it runs afoul of business law.
Steve Lehto posted[0] a very good analysis of the legal basis for the lawsuit and temporary restraining order. He predicts the judge will lift the TRO and the lawsuit will be dismissed this week if the parties don’t settle.
[0] https://youtu.be/QE5mV5V-pHs
[0] https://youtu.be/QE5mV5V-pHs
What is the legal basis for the lawsuit for those of us who cannot watch the video?
The basis for the temporary restraining order was irreparable harm. The judge could not force the defendants to work at at Theta (13th Amendment - prohibition of involuntary servitude). As predicted, the judge declined to convert the TRO into a permanent injunction, but the (meritless, IMO) lawsuit can continue.
It doesn't specify.
There was a hearing this morning. Might still be happening but I don't see this article as offering any information from this morning.
I was reading this: https://www.boardmanclark.com/publications/hr-heads-up/emplo...
Wisconsin seems to be restrictive even if there was a non-compete. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a non-compete. Therefore "poaching" is legal and offensive term here.
I was reading this: https://www.boardmanclark.com/publications/hr-heads-up/emplo...
Wisconsin seems to be restrictive even if there was a non-compete. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a non-compete. Therefore "poaching" is legal and offensive term here.
Looks like the judge reversed the injunction after the hearing today. There will be no consequences to the judge or the suing hospital in the legal forum :(
That judge is going to have the decision reversed and just told the whole world that every other decision he's made deserves intense scrutiny. What a dope!
not if they lift the injection and resolve the issue themselves, or if the two parties come to an agreement to resolve the situation
the really messed up thing is that the judge can lift it, and then any attempt to investigate/address this issue will be dismissed sense the matter is "now moot".
Supposedly this judge... according to someone on youtube.... has a history of questionable judgements
"that every other decision he's made deserves intense scrutiny"
When it comes to calculated risks, its sadly a good bet that a judge wont be held accountable. This particular case got national attention, but judges do questionable judgements all the time that flagrantly ignore the law and nothing ever happens to them. This judge didnt really make a bad bet based on the information he had about what he could get away with. And the odds that he will face any kind of adverse action are small.
What is very interesting though, is that both left and right wing sources are lambasting this judge. (albeit for ideologically very different reasons) So he may actually receive some kind of adverse consequence if noise about it continues to ramp up.
When it comes to calculated risks, its sadly a good bet that a judge wont be held accountable. This particular case got national attention, but judges do questionable judgements all the time that flagrantly ignore the law and nothing ever happens to them. This judge didnt really make a bad bet based on the information he had about what he could get away with. And the odds that he will face any kind of adverse action are small.
What is very interesting though, is that both left and right wing sources are lambasting this judge. (albeit for ideologically very different reasons) So he may actually receive some kind of adverse consequence if noise about it continues to ramp up.
a common argument given against stating that healthcare is a human right is that if you make a positive right a human right you will make the provider of those rights slaves. that is because they will be forced to provide that service against their will. it always sounded like a weak argument to me, after all child education is a positive right and teachers are not treated like slaves. however, barring people from working at their main competitor is a pretty good way to force them to work at their current company in order to not lose their income and their house. that argument is starting to make more sense to me now.
I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ?
No, as medical workers they have a duty to provide care if they show up to work.
They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do).
They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do).
> They can just not show up, but then the hospital will fire them (with a strong position to deny them unemployment when they do).
Hold on. They've quit. The hospital has taken them to court and obtained a legal injunction preventing them from quitting. Now you're suggesting that the hospital threaten to fire them? That's the point of quitting.
It's like if a six year old is throwing a tantrum because they want a cookie and you threaten to give them a cookie unless they stop throwing a tantrum.
Hold on. They've quit. The hospital has taken them to court and obtained a legal injunction preventing them from quitting. Now you're suggesting that the hospital threaten to fire them? That's the point of quitting.
It's like if a six year old is throwing a tantrum because they want a cookie and you threaten to give them a cookie unless they stop throwing a tantrum.
> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ?
These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care.
These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care.
It's the hospital's responsibility to ensure patients get adequate care, not the ex-employees of the hospital.
The hospital can ensure patients get adequate care by attracting additional workers with sufficient compensation, retaining sufficient workers by offering them adequate compensation, and punish inadequate workers by firing them. The hospital in question seems to be willing to do none of these things.
The hospital can ensure patients get adequate care by attracting additional workers with sufficient compensation, retaining sufficient workers by offering them adequate compensation, and punish inadequate workers by firing them. The hospital in question seems to be willing to do none of these things.
How is it any different than if they just didn't show up because they rage quit and took jobs in a different industry?
And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get.
>>> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ?
>> These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care.
> And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get.
My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, because there could literally be an innocent man down the hall who's suffering because of your immediate actions. That's not a man you should stick it to. It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that.
Imagine these scenarios:
A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some patient who's laying in his own piss and shit, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him a bedpan.
or
A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some who dies because he didn't get his medication, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him his medication.
vs.
A GameStop clerk "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from a customer who wants to buy a videogame but can't.
>> These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care.
> And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get.
My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, because there could literally be an innocent man down the hall who's suffering because of your immediate actions. That's not a man you should stick it to. It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that.
Imagine these scenarios:
A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some patient who's laying in his own piss and shit, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him a bedpan.
or
A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some who dies because he didn't get his medication, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him his medication.
vs.
A GameStop clerk "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from a customer who wants to buy a videogame but can't.
Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts.
If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
>> It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that.
> Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts.
> If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
This is exactly the kind of premature analysis stoppage I was talking about (i.e. thinking like the only thing that matters is your relationship to your employer, and everything else can be ignored). It's not a recipe for doing the right thing, it's a recipe for being a self-righteous asshole who could do a lot of harm.
> Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts.
> If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
This is exactly the kind of premature analysis stoppage I was talking about (i.e. thinking like the only thing that matters is your relationship to your employer, and everything else can be ignored). It's not a recipe for doing the right thing, it's a recipe for being a self-righteous asshole who could do a lot of harm.
I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters.
The relevant relationship is citizen to country.
tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right. We don't require people to donate kidneys, we praise them when they volunteer, and we condemn regimes that take organs involuntarily.
Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
The relevant relationship is citizen to country.
tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right. We don't require people to donate kidneys, we praise them when they volunteer, and we condemn regimes that take organs involuntarily.
Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
> I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters.
> The relevant relationship is citizen to country.
> tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right.
I'm actually focusing on the idea that you expressed approval of, where the person goes to work, but then deliberately neglects their duties. The proximity is morally relevant there. It's one thing to quit, it's quite another to go in and basically taunt an innocent person who's in need while you stick it to the man, and that's a distinct possibility if (say) a nurse accepts a shift with the intention of slacking until she's fired.
There's more at play with health care workers than just their "relationship to the employer."
> Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral, by the way. Don't forget that.
I'm not sure if it has a name, but there an error in reasoning at play here, where someone has choices A and B but they're analyzed in a characteristically incomplete way. Only the pros of A and the cons of B are actually weighed, and the conclusion is that A is the right choice. If you're going to be honest, analyze the thing holistically.
> The relevant relationship is citizen to country.
> tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right.
I'm actually focusing on the idea that you expressed approval of, where the person goes to work, but then deliberately neglects their duties. The proximity is morally relevant there. It's one thing to quit, it's quite another to go in and basically taunt an innocent person who's in need while you stick it to the man, and that's a distinct possibility if (say) a nurse accepts a shift with the intention of slacking until she's fired.
There's more at play with health care workers than just their "relationship to the employer."
> Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral, by the way. Don't forget that.
I'm not sure if it has a name, but there an error in reasoning at play here, where someone has choices A and B but they're analyzed in a characteristically incomplete way. Only the pros of A and the cons of B are actually weighed, and the conclusion is that A is the right choice. If you're going to be honest, analyze the thing holistically.
The instant case is no longer at controversy, as the judge has dropped the restraining order. Let's continue, anyway.
A person who is being ordered to work against their will has no legal or ethical duty to do so, and you haven't offered an argument in favor of it.
Legally, the 13th Amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Conviction is necessary. You can't be forced to work while in jail waiting around to be tried, even if you've been indicted.
Any legal argument that you want to offer needs to meet that.
Now, ethics. You countered my
> Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
with
Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral
and completely ignored my analogy of organ donors.
I'd be happy to hear your arguments, if they aren't just contradictions. This isn't Argument Clinic. What does "analyze the thing holistically" mean if you have neither legality nor morality on your side?
A person who is being ordered to work against their will has no legal or ethical duty to do so, and you haven't offered an argument in favor of it.
Legally, the 13th Amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Conviction is necessary. You can't be forced to work while in jail waiting around to be tried, even if you've been indicted.
Any legal argument that you want to offer needs to meet that.
Now, ethics. You countered my
> Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
with
Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral
and completely ignored my analogy of organ donors.
I'd be happy to hear your arguments, if they aren't just contradictions. This isn't Argument Clinic. What does "analyze the thing holistically" mean if you have neither legality nor morality on your side?
Please understand me. It's not a premature stoppage. If you are forcing me to be a slave, then fuck you for doing it, and any damage/death/loss suffered by others because of my non-compliance is on your hands, not mine.
I absolutely would rock up with a chair and sit watching. Hell, I'd bring popcorn.
I absolutely would rock up with a chair and sit watching. Hell, I'd bring popcorn.
Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil.
> Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil.
Slave? Good? Evil? The rhetoric in this thread is over the top and way too melodramatic. "Valiant nurse Skywalker struck a blow against the EVIL Empire by letting the sick ewok Wicket wallow in his own shit. He could help Wicket, but that would be SLAVERY, so he BECAME THE BEARER OF GOOD by watching Wicket suffer and reading a magazine instead of helping him."
Let me put it this way: It's more evil to sit there and watch some patient suffer without helping them than whatever evil you're so concerned with here.
However, I totally get that it may be difficult for some software engineers (whose jobs typically have no more moral significance or responsibility than a GameStop clerk's), to understand that not every situation is like their own.
Slave? Good? Evil? The rhetoric in this thread is over the top and way too melodramatic. "Valiant nurse Skywalker struck a blow against the EVIL Empire by letting the sick ewok Wicket wallow in his own shit. He could help Wicket, but that would be SLAVERY, so he BECAME THE BEARER OF GOOD by watching Wicket suffer and reading a magazine instead of helping him."
Let me put it this way: It's more evil to sit there and watch some patient suffer without helping them than whatever evil you're so concerned with here.
However, I totally get that it may be difficult for some software engineers (whose jobs typically have no more moral significance or responsibility than a GameStop clerk's), to understand that not every situation is like their own.
> My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way,
Healthcare workers in the US were largely done thinking this way before the pandemic, unfortunately.
Healthcare workers in the US were largely done thinking this way before the pandemic, unfortunately.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Judicial, prosecutorial, and police immunity really needs to be revisited.
You will never ever find a Supreme Court that will rule that judges can be held accountable for what they do though. No matter how you rig/pack/arrange the Court. No Justice will ever vote to make themselves more personally vulnerable.
You will never ever find a Supreme Court that will rule that judges can be held accountable for what they do though. No matter how you rig/pack/arrange the Court. No Justice will ever vote to make themselves more personally vulnerable.
How do you solve the problem of preventing political retaliation for unpopular but morally correct decisions? For example, court decisions that dismantled school segregation and that allowed women to vote.
Furthermore the other branches of government could step in when things like this happen too.
Furthermore the other branches of government could step in when things like this happen too.
This is a classic who watches the watchman problem.
The answer might be that judicial oversight is handled by non judicial actors.
Civilian oversight panels are commonly looked at as a solution for police and judges need it as well. Judicial oversight is currently in the hands of other judges who have incentives not to create precedent on cracking down on corrupt judges.
The answer might be that judicial oversight is handled by non judicial actors.
Civilian oversight panels are commonly looked at as a solution for police and judges need it as well. Judicial oversight is currently in the hands of other judges who have incentives not to create precedent on cracking down on corrupt judges.
Morality is subjective. Why should courts be able to overrule the population's wishes?
Usually it's to protect the rights of minorities. This is well covered in the Federalist Papers.
Law is supposed to be independent of people, not a decree from royalty, and the US system is one of limited government. Legislators can't do whatever they want and the check-and-balance system is supposed to limit that.
I've never understood why USAians decided it's a good idea to elect judges (or sheriffs, or DAs). Nor do I understand why it's considered OK for jurors to talk to the press after the case. From my perspective, the US judicial/LE system seems like a crapshoot.
County Coroners are elected in many places as well, which is bonkers in my mind
Would you rather them be appointed? Who would appoint them?
Well, that's a good question.
what seems silly about electing these officials, is that it shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be a matter of competence, and compliance with rules. What good are laws whose effects depends on the mood of voters or the whims of the enforcer?
It's not great to have lawyers appoint other lawyers. You end up with an in-group. But that kind of system does seem to give you law whose effects are fairly predictable, at least. But you have to explain how the topmost lawyers get appointed, the ones who appoint other lawyers.
The US Supreme Court seems to be nominated by the Pres, and then confirmed by the Senate, which is full of lawyers. So the USSC seems to be appointed, by their juniors.
Hmmm. I wondered how UKSC justices are appointed; it's rather good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
A commission is formed, consisting of the president of the court, another senior judge who is not on the UKSC, and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. At least one of them must not be a lawyer. The commission is set up by the Minister of Justice, who apparently can overrule them. The PM and the Queen both have a final veto.
what seems silly about electing these officials, is that it shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be a matter of competence, and compliance with rules. What good are laws whose effects depends on the mood of voters or the whims of the enforcer?
It's not great to have lawyers appoint other lawyers. You end up with an in-group. But that kind of system does seem to give you law whose effects are fairly predictable, at least. But you have to explain how the topmost lawyers get appointed, the ones who appoint other lawyers.
The US Supreme Court seems to be nominated by the Pres, and then confirmed by the Senate, which is full of lawyers. So the USSC seems to be appointed, by their juniors.
Hmmm. I wondered how UKSC justices are appointed; it's rather good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
A commission is formed, consisting of the president of the court, another senior judge who is not on the UKSC, and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. At least one of them must not be a lawyer. The commission is set up by the Minister of Justice, who apparently can overrule them. The PM and the Queen both have a final veto.
The actual article being cribbed from: https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2022/01/21/what-we-k...
(Note: I have no knowledge of or opinion about the law itself, I don't know WI labor law, and the filings aren't linked from the article; so I can't evaluate the legal merits of the case.)