Worker Shortage?

[GGT]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-worker-strike

I heard about this student-teacher strike on NPR radio. Very interesting perspective of modern academia's flaws.

Another topic was "The Great Worker Resignation" with an interview by the author of "Breaking Things at Work: The Luddites Were Right About Why You Hate Your Job". https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0

An exhilarating challenge to the way we think about work, technology, progress, and what we want from the future

In the 19th century, English textile workers responded to the introduction of new tecnologies [sic] on the factory floor by smashing them to bits. For years 'the Luddites' roamed the English countryside, practicing drills and maneuvers that they would later deploy on unassuming machines. The movement has been derided by scholars as a backwards-looking and ultimately ineffectual effort to stem the march of history; for Gavin Mueller, the movement gets at the heart of of the antagonistic relationship between workers - all workers, including us today - and the so-called progressive gains secured by new technologies. The luddites weren't primitive or even anachronistic - they are still a force, however unconsciously, in the workplaces of the 21st century world.

Breaking Things at Work is an innovative rethinking of labor and machines, leaping from textile mills to algorithms, from existentially threatened knife cutters of rural Germany to surveillance evading truckers driving across the continental United States. Mueller argues that the future stability and empowerment of working class movements will depend on subverting these technologies and preventing their spread wherever possible. The task is high, but the seeds of this resistance are already present in the Neo-Luddite efforts of hackers, pirates, and dark web users who are challenging surveillance and control, often through older systems of communication technology.

[GGT]

For context, see the Right to Repair (R2R) movement by farmers, and law suits filed against John Deere https://www.motorbiscuit.com/farmers...eere-tractors/

[Steely Glint]

Wage suppression — not stagnation — is costing workers $10 an hour

Radical and rising economic inequality is no secret — and now, neither is its cause. New research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that the massive upward redistribution of income our nation has suffered these past four decades can largely be attributed to policies intentionally designed to suppress the wages of American workers.

To be clear, wage suppression was not an unintended consequence — it was the intentional outcome of policies at the legislative, regulatory and corporate levels deliberately implemented to keep wages low. As a nation, we chose to suppress wages on behalf of the rich and corporations — and with spectacular success.

In the post-World War II boom, from 1948 to 1979, wages broadly rose across the wage scale largely in lockstep with economy-wide productivity, helping to build the largest and most prosperous middle class the world has ever seen. But after 1979, the interests of the wealthiest Americans sharply diverged from everyone else. Productivity, net of depreciation, rose by 56 percent between 1979 and 2017, a period during which the top one-tenth of 1 percent saw their earnings soar at least five times that rate, while median hourly compensation gained only 13 percent and the bottom one-third of workers actually saw their real wages fall.

We conservatively estimate that this 43-percentage point gap between productivity and median compensation — this shift of national income from labor to profits and from the bottom 90 percent of earners to the very top earners — is costing the median American worker nearly $10 an hour — almost $20,700 a year for a full-time worker.

Many have sought to blame rising inequality on structural changes in the underlying economy, but our research finds that in fact deliberate policy choices are largely at fault. How can we be so confident in assigning intent? The answer comes from the policies that have played the biggest role — excessive unemployment, eroded collective bargaining and corporate-driven globalization — three policies which are inherently focused on suppressing wages that account for more than half the productivity-wage divergence and a loss of more than $5 an hour for the typical worker.

The largest and most obvious is excessive unemployment. The Federal Reserve is charged with the dual mandate of pursuing the maximum level of employment consistent with stable inflation, but since 1979 the Fed has aggressively erred on the side of the latter. Operating under the theory that tighter labor markets inevitably lead to higher inflation as rising wages push up consumer prices, the Fed has consistently reined in job growth by hiking interest rates whenever unemployment approached the allegedly “natural rate” (regardless of whether there was any evidence that inflation was actually on the rise).

The result was an unemployment rate that averaged 6.3 percent from 1979 through 2017, a full point higher than during the previous three decades, intentionally denying workers the opportunity to benefit from tighter labor markets. We find that had unemployment averaged 5.5 percent (a modest goal) rather than 6.3 percent, median wages would have been 10 percent higher in 2017. Had the unemployment rate averaged 5 percent, median wages would have been 18.3 percent higher — at the 10th percentile, 21.2 percent higher.

The Federal Reserve intentionally raises interest rates and slows job growth which results in the diminished power of workers to demand higher wages. This is a fact. Thus, regardless of how seriously you take the inflation threat, you cannot deny that excessive unemployment is a choice — and that wage suppression is its proximate goal. And the same holds true of the litany of other policy choices that play an empirically assessable role in suppressing wages.

For example, the primary purpose of collective bargaining is to bargain for higher compensation, thus any policy that erodes the right to unionize intentionally suppresses wages. The purpose of outsourcing, both offshore and domestically, is to reduce labor costs, and thus to suppress wages. Misclassification, non-competes, anti-poaching agreements, forced arbitration agreements and most other labor market “innovations” are all implemented in an effort to suppress wages. And then, of course, there’s the minimum wage.

Unchanged since 2009, the federal minimum wage now stands at $7.25 an hour. Had it continued to rise with productivity as it had during the post-war decades, it would be $20 an hour today. The whole purpose of the minimum wage is to lift the wages of low-paid workers. Thus, our decades-long policy of eroding the minimum wage, the overtime threshold, and other labor standards can only be understood as a deliberate choice to suppress wages.

In fact, wage suppression has become such a norm that employers appear totally flummoxed at the reluctance of some workers to come back on the job at pre-COVID wages in the midst of a deadly pandemic. It apparently never occurs to them to entice workers back by offering higher pay. Instead, they blame more generous unemployment benefits for creating a “labor shortage.” But in truth, what we have now — what we’ve long had — is a wage shortage created by decades of policies — enabled by economists and implemented on behalf of corporations and the wealthy — deliberately designed to keep wages low.

As our research reveals, our crisis of radical inequality is not an accident. It is a choice. Policy decisions are responsible for rising inequality — and policy decisions can reverse it. It appears that the Biden administration is taking this lesson to heart. The already-passed American Rescue Plan is driving us quickly to low unemployment. Some predict it will reach 3.5 percent by the end of 2022. Policies already underway include:

Rebuilding collective bargaining, raising the minimum wage (legislatively and for contractors)
Policing worker misclassification
Restoring access to overtime for salaried workers
Reinvigorating the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
The American Jobs Plan targets good quality jobs for noncollege-educated workers. This agenda is a recipe for restoring sustained robust wage growth for the vast majority, finally.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...ers-10-an-hour

Can't wait to see who the One Person who will suddenly appear at ensure all of that stuff in the last paragraph is 'impossible' will be. My prediction is that if it's not some air quotes 'principled moderate' within the Democratic party, it will be a mysterious and, of course, scrupulously impartial figure known only as 'the Intendant'.

[wiggin]

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...ers-10-an-hour

Can't wait to see who the One Person who will suddenly appear at ensure all of that stuff in the last paragraph is 'impossible' will be. My prediction is that if it's not some air quotes 'principled moderate' within the Democratic party, it will be a mysterious and, of course, scrupulously impartial figure known only as 'the Intendant'.

You know, Steely, there's not all that much that's crazy controversial in their policy proposals (though it's also extremely vague - whatever 'rebuilding collective bargaining' and 'reinvigorating the EEOC' means). The biggest sticking point would probably be overtime for salaried workers, I'd think. But if the authors think that these policies would dramatically improve the direction of wages, they're probably dreaming. Notably, it does very little to directly address the ills they purport to identify in the research cited.

Sure, at the very bottom of the income spectrum raising the minimum wage will have immediate and obvious effects. And stronger collective bargaining (in whatever guise they settle on) will also help the tiny fraction of American workers who are actually unionized. Etc. But these are piecemeal solutions when the policy agenda they believe exists is global (e.g. Fed policy).

I am frankly unconvinced that Fed policy was intended to suppress wages in the last 30-40 years. I think one might argue that it has suppressed wages, most notably through sharply curtailing inflation since the 1980s using methods pioneered by Volcker and his successors - I am curious to see how the EPI's analysis looks when inflation corrected. And I am fairly dovish on monetary policy and think that there has been an over-emphasis on controlling inflation rather than providing 'full employment', as we frequently stray away from full employment but rarely see high levels of inflation (current numbers notwithstanding). But I think it's a stretch to suggest that this is due to a cabal of greedy Fed governors on the FOMC trying to suppress wages and increase unemployment, rather than a preoccupation with inflation following the 1970s and the difficulty in determining the true level of 'full employment' compared to the well quantified inflation numbers.

How any of the proposed policies would affect this fundamental Fed dynamic is beyond me, however.

[Steely Glint]

They suppressed wages for 40 years by accident? How does that even happen? Did they not notice? If true, this is arguably one of the most damning policy failures of the post-war period.

You know, Steely, there's not all that much that's crazy controversial in their policy proposals

No, the legislation isn't contentious at all, but you see, unfortunately, there are procedural reasons why this legislation can't go forward at this time. Alas.

(though it's also extremely vague - whatever 'rebuilding collective bargaining' and 'reinvigorating the EEOC' means).

Bit at the end is mostly bollocks. Biden has no more interest in addressing this problem than any of his predecessors had.

[GGT]

The Fed's dual mandate (controlling unemployment and inflation) has always had conflicting interests baked into their policies.

The Federal Reserve Act, the Banking Act, and the FOMC are a fairly complicated sets of laws and regulations with over 200 changes made by congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

I think what's been *exposed* since the financial crisis of '08, and the covid pandemic of '19, is that using monetary policy (as we did in the Volcker era, and again during The Great Recession) will NOT address modern domestic problems of a global economy, particularly if it's based on debts owned by banks/bankers/financiers and their shareholders.

Only elected politicians can change this, but millions of working people are waking up to the reality that politicians are beholden to their donors and lobbyists, and not the constituents who elected them. *cough Manchin*

[wiggin]

They suppressed wages for 40 years by accident? How does that even happen? Did they not notice? If true, this is arguably one of the most damning policy failures of the post-war period.

They suppressed inflation, rather successfully, which also at a minimum reduced the nominal wage growth. Additional suppression in real wage growth beyond that was likely unintended but not directly part of the Fed purview.

The Fed's job is to keep the most people employed and keep inflation low. Neither of those are necessarily compatible with substantial upward pressure on wages - though in some cases, low unemployment can cause some wage increases.

Even so, I'm not even convinced that the central contention is true - that Fed policy was shooting or higher unemployment than would otherwise have been the case. It's not at all clear what the natural level of unemployment is, and crucially, it's also not clear whether that number changes over time. Over the same period that the article is discussing, there were massive shifts in the US economy - the inexorable rise of services, the digital revolution, etc. It's entirely believable that the rough average was representative of full employment.

But even if it wasn't - if the Fed preoccupation with inflation meant that employment got shafted on average - that doesn't add up to an intentional effort to suppress wages. They want to prevent wage-price spirals, yes, but beyond that the Fed is not particularly interested in seeing real wages stagnate.

[Loki]

The globalization part is particularly bizarre. There is no serious argument that the net effect of globalization was to increase employment and purchasing power. The latter kept down inflation, which meant that the Fed could afford to have lower interest rates that it had in the past. Combining this argument with the one about the Fed intentionally depressing wages makes absolutely no sense.

Link showing that the Federal Funds Rate was actually lower in the era where the Fed was allegedly trying to keep down wages by keeping interest rates high: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

[Steely Glint]

They suppressed inflation, rather successfully, which also at a minimum reduced the nominal wage growth. Additional suppression in real wage growth beyond that was likely unintended but not directly part of the Fed purview.

The research argues that they were suppressing wage growth as a tool to keep inflation low, not that they successfully kept inflation low which, as a consequence, also kept wages low. It also doesn't argue that they were sitting around drinking port with their billionaire buddies guffawing about how they've managed to con everyone into suppressing wages across two generations under the guise of flighting inflation. I mean, they probably were doing that, but that's not what the research argues.

From the paper

Historically, the anti-inflation orientation of the Fed was quite political and conscious of the institutional determinants of wage growth. Specifically, past Fed chairs, determined to keep wage growth “moderate,” explicitly saw the use of high unemployment as a means to restrain union-negotiated wage increases or even to seek union wage concessions.

Mitchell and Erickson (2005) characterized this policy orientation during the era of Paul Volcker’s chairmanship of the Fed (1979–1987), when there was a deep recession and a sharp reduction in unionization (40% of the erosion of unions over the 1979–2017 period occurred in 1979–1984):

Volcker viewed affecting union wage determination through monetary restraint as important for the Fed’s disinflation campaign. One commentator characterized the Fed chair’s view as founded on the idea that “inflation would not be securely defeated…until all those workers and their unions agreed to accept less. If they were not impressed by words, perhaps the liquidation of several million more jobs would convince them.” …Others at the Fed apparently had similar wage-push ideas. To Volcker, direct intervention in particular wage settlements was not desirable (and clearly not the province of the Fed). But a monetary squeeze that forced the union sector to hold down nominal wages in the hopes of preserving jobs was an appropriate policy instrument. Squeeze the unions and other wages (and prices) would fall into line.

Hooper, Mishkin, and Sufi (2019, 25) note that “since the 1980s the Fed focused much more on avoiding labor market overheating in order to stabilize inflation.” The discussion in Appendix B provides a further analysis of the Federal Reserve policy that maintained excessive unemployment.

https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/pub...on-inequality/

[Dreadnaught]

What a surprise that a union-funded think thank thinks all the ills of the economy can be solved with more unionization

They want the entire workplace to look like a car assembly line in the 1950s.

[Steely Glint]

By 1955 General Motors was paying assemblers $2.00 an hour (page 19 of the PDF), about $20 an hour in today's money. By 1966, when the data ends, they were paying the equivalent of £25 an hour. Today, they pay $18 an hour. Meanwhile, over the same period productivity (economy wide) has increased by 60%. So, I guess that would actually be an improvement. Eye roll emoji.

[LittleFuzzy]

Unionization would be mostly pointless. What matters in the analysis is the globalization. More unionization would mostly just mean more outsourcing.

[Steely Glint]

I don't know that it's as simple as unionise = outsourced as there is still scope for successful union action in the US, as Kellogg's workers have just demonstrated - but in any case there are plenty of jobs that can't be outsourced, such as the entire service sector, retail, haulage etc.

[LittleFuzzy]

There are things that can't be outsourced, true. A lot of service can be, though. I imagine we're going to see wages come down in healthcare as telemedicine continues to take off. Online markets are demonstrating a whole lot of retail can be as well. Haulage may be on its way as well, if large-scale self-driving works out. More standardization and prefab will allow more and more costs to be outsourced even in things which look like they HAVE to be local, like construction. Anything that allows work-from-home can be outsourced. The pandemic has demonstrated even teaching can be.

There's scope for successful union action, yes. Unionization or lack thereof is just not a very significant factor in the growth or stagnation of wages now. Globalization is. Because companies (even outside a capitalist framework) are always going to be trying to cut their costs as much as they can and technological progress has made the accessible competitive labor pool for most endeavors much much larger.

[Steely Glint]

You're conflating the historical trend of stagnating wages since the 1980s with a hypothetical future trend of automation and technology driven outsourcing. These are two different things and we don't know how, if at all, the second one will shake out.

Personally, I'm not really convinced of this 'automation will make jobs obsolete' line of thinking, the only really successful example of this we have so far is self-checkouts, and they always need a human member of staff standing over them to help people who can't figure them out, or to intervene with they go wrong. Unless we see some truly epochal advances in technology, you will always need a human to oversee the machines, you will always need a human to make certain decisions, and more often than not you will always need to have a human on site, as well - someone's going to have to physical move the goods from the ship onto the truck or from the big truck to the delivery truck, or fix the truck when it breaks down.

[Loki]

How many people now work as secretaries? Compare that to the pre-PC era.

https://www.ft.com/content/9420a7b0-...4-00144feab7de

[LittleFuzzy]

You're conflating the historical trend of stagnating wages since the 1980s with a hypothetical future trend of automation and technology driven outsourcing. These are two different things and we don't know how, if at all, the second one will shake out.

It's not a future trend, it's one we've been in the middle of SINCE the 1980s.

[Steely Glint]

How many people now work as secretaries? Compare that to the pre-PC era.

https://www.ft.com/content/9420a7b0-...4-00144feab7de

We have several new industries that didn't exist before because of the PC?

It's not a future trend, it's one we've been in the middle of SINCE the 1980s.

Outsourcing and automation aren't responsible for a stagnating wages in since the 1980s in industries where the tech to outsource/automate them didn't exist until the mid 2000s or later, and in many ways still does not exist.

Globalisation is an important factor, but there's no basis to say the trends in unionisation aren't significant.

[Dreadnaught]

By 1955 General Motors was paying assemblers $2.00 an hour (page 19 of the PDF), about $20 an hour in today's money. By 1966, when the data ends, they were paying the equivalent of £25 an hour. Today, they pay $18 an hour. Meanwhile, over the same period productivity (economy wide) has increased by 60%. So, I guess that would actually be an improvement. Eye roll emoji.

I think you may be missing how benefits are a much larger and faster-growing component of compensation across this time period. There's some review of this on page 25 of the PDF you cite, though it's not quite quantified. Still, it's safe to assume benefits-per-employee were a significantly smaller proportion of the hourly wage in 1955 compared to now.

Also in 1955 the auto industry was still significantly dominated by Amerikan companies, whose competitive advantage began to erode over the next few decades. Europe and Asia rebuilding hollowed-out industrial bases is probably a good thing long-term.

[Steely Glint]

Is it safe to say? What are these benefits? Because most Americans don't have enough saved to retire, and you're definitely getting stiffed on PTO and sick leave. Is it health insurance? I feel like it might be health insurance.

Europe and Asia rebuilding hollowed-out industrial bases is probably a good thing long-term.

This is an economy wide trend, it's not just something that happens in car manufacturing. For the record, stagnant wages are an issue in Europe as well, though it seems to have started around the time of the 2008 crash, rather than the 80s.

[ar81]

There is no shortage of workers. There is shortage of will to pay attractive wages and train people.

[Dreadnaught]

Is it safe to say? What are these benefits? Because most Americans don't have enough saved to retire, and you're definitely getting stiffed on PTO and sick leave. Is it health insurance? I feel like it might be health insurance.

Probably health. Also even high-income Amerikans are bad at retirement savings. We live in the PRESENT and CARPE DIEM and I WANT A NEW BIG TRUCK.

This is an economy wide trend, it's not just something that happens in car manufacturing. For the record, stagnant wages are an issue in Europe as well, though it seems to have started around the time of the 2008 crash, rather than the 80s.

Is the issue stagnant wages or a stagnant labor market?

[Steely Glint]

Probably health. Also even high-income Amerikans are bad at retirement savings. We live in the PRESENT and CARPE DIEM and I WANT A NEW BIG TRUCK.

Americans are 'bad' at retirement savings because the rise in the cost of living has outstripped the rise in wages and they can't save because there's nothing left over at the end of the month to save.

Turns out, the person who really wants a big new truck is their boss.

[Lewkowski]

Americans are 'bad' at retirement savings because the rise in the cost of living has outstripped the rise in wages and they can't save because there's nothing left over at the end of the month to save.

Turns out, the person who really wants a big new truck is their boss.

Ehh lots of people spend money they don't have on things they don't need. I remember working in fastfood during college and the 'lifers' there were constantly going out after work on Fridays and would easily spend $40+ on alcohol. A lot of people are really bad at delaying gratification.

[wiggin]

Isn't it possible that both narratives are true? Yes, there are many people with low incomes who don't always make the wisest use of their money (not to say that people with high income do...). But it's also true that saving those extra $40 a week will not be enough to, say, pay for retirement or future healthcare needs.

It's no secret that companies will pay workers as little as possible given prevailing labor market conditions, and that pay may not be adequate to meet the financial needs of the employee. That doesn't preclude said employees from making poor decisions, whether or not they are high or low on the pay scale. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the basics of retirement accounts and investing to people with STEM degrees (sometimes doctorates); people rarely do the math to figure out what they should actually be spending vs. saving. But just because this is true doesn't mean that low income Americans are paid enough to make it work if they DID make all the right decisions.

[Steely Glint]

Ehh lots of people spend money they don't have on things they don't need. I remember working in fastfood during college and the 'lifers' there were constantly going out after work on Fridays and would easily spend $40+ on alcohol. A lot of people are really bad at delaying gratification.

Yeah, if the poors would only have the decency live their lives as ascetic hermits so that the very rich can extract the absolute maximum possible from their labour and thus have 6 yachts and 4 homes instead of 5 yachts and 3 homes, that would obviously be ideal but with so many living pay-check to pay-check have you thought about what would happen to consumer spending if people actually did this? The entire economy is based around people 'spending money they don't have' and ultimately, therefore, on debt.

[Steely Glint]

Isn't it possible that both narratives are true?

In general, I'd say that if one person sucks at something (saving for retirement in this case) then that's a problem with them but if *everyone* sucks at it then that's a problem with the system. Whether it be lack of education, needless complications and barriers, or lack of funds or whatever else.

[wiggin]

In general, I'd say that if one person sucks at something (saving for retirement in this case) then that's a problem with them but if *everyone* sucks at it then that's a problem with the system. Whether it be lack of education, needless complications and barriers, or lack of funds or whatever else.

Oh, agreed entirely. I think there's lots of scope to improve the way retirement works in the US (and, I imagine, of countries, even ones with bigger DB systems). At a bare minimum, we can do lots of low hanging fruit that dramatically improve outcomes (a la Thaler and Sunnstein) - automated enrollment in plans, auto-escalation of contribution, automatic selection of a reasonable and low cost investment option. There's other ways to incentivize employers to match contributions and force them (or the plan managers) to act as better fiduciaries.

Although I'm not convinced that DB plans run by companies work all that well in today's workforce (outside of lifer type jobs in e.g. government), but Social Security provides a de facto DB plan that comprises a large proportion of retirement savings for lower income workers - it makes sense to strengthen these benefits and add more means testing (since people with $10 million retirement assets probably don't need Social Security).

Lastly, the biggest unknown risk for most retirees is healthcare and long term care costs, even with Medicare/Medicaid assistance. Better ability to defray end of life costs through targeted changes to these programs (or, better yet, a massive overhaul that gets rid of the ridiculous patchwork that exists right now) would dramatically enhance the financial security of most retirees.

The US retirement system isn't entirely awful, but you're entirely correct that there are major areas of obvious improvement to be made. I will note, however, that these changes largely do not directly address compensation, but rather address incentives and inertia in our existing system that end up in suboptimal results. More compensation would help, but we all seem to be in agreement that many people are unprepared for retirement irrespective of their education or income. Income might help at the margins, but only if the incentives and system is set up appropriately.

[Steely Glint]

In the grim darkness of the 2020s, there is only news stories about not being able to afford a house somehow framed as heart warming, and the laughter of thirsting capitalists

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

APPLETON - It was unclear whether a group of former ThedaCare employees would be allowed to start their new jobs at Ascension Northeast Wisconsin Monday after lawyers for both health systems made their first appearance in court Friday morning.

The uncertainty is the latest development in a battle over health care employees that began late Thursday and is now playing out in court. It comes as staff shortages strain health systems nationwide — nearly one in five health care workers have quit their jobs since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.


ThedaCare requested Thursday that an Outagamie County judge temporarily block seven of its employees who had applied for and accepted jobs at Ascension from beginning work there on Monday until the health system could find replacements for them.


The employees were part of an 11-member interventional radiology and cardiovascular team, which can perform procedures to stop bleeding in targeted areas during a traumatic injury or restore blood flow to the brain in the case of a stroke. Each of them were employed at-will, meaning they were not under an obligation to stay at ThedaCare for a certain amount of time.


Outagamie County Circuit Court Judge Mark McGinnis granted ThedaCare's request and held an initial hearing Friday morning. The case will get a longer hearing at 10 a.m. Monday.


McGinnis told lawyers for both health systems they should try to work out a temporary agreement by the end of the day Friday about the employees' status until Monday's hearing.


Otherwise, he said, the order prohibiting them from going to work at Ascension would be final until a further ruling was made. That means the seven health care workers would not be working at either hospital on Monday.


"To me, that is a poor result for everyone involved," McGinnis said.


In the complaint, lawyers for ThedaCare wrote that Ascension had "shockingly" chosen to "poach" the employees during a stressful time for health care. More COVID-19 patients are hospitalized in the Fox Valley now than at any other time during the pandemic, according to Wisconsin Hospital Association data, and ThedaCare has canceled non-emergency surgeries to make space.


A Thursday statement from Ascension said the employees were not recruited but instead decided to apply for open job postings. It was Ascension's understanding that ThedaCare had the opportunity to make counter-offers but declined, the statement said.


Attorney Sean Bosack, who represented ThedaCare Friday, argued that losing the majority of these employees poses a health threat to the region because the health system's Neenah hospital is a hub for high-level stroke care and care for patients with traumatic injuries.


ThedaCare-Neenah is a Level II Trauma Center, part of which means they have specialists like interventional radiologists available regularly to treat patients. Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital, a Level III Trauma Center, can provide initial support to trauma patients and is able to transfer them to ThedaCare-Neenah for more care, according to definitions from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.


ThedaCare's Neenah facility is also a Comprehensive Stroke Center, which also means having specialists available regularly. Ascension St. Elizabeth is a Primary Stroke Center, a designation which does not stipulate having those staff available around the clock.


In the time it takes to divert a local patient in need of emergency care for a stroke or trauma to another similarly certified hospital, Bosack said, the patient could die.


Attorney David Muth, who represented Ascension Friday, said their hospital was capable of caring for such patients in the event that it was necessary even though they are not designated at the same level as ThedaCare.


Muth argued that ThedaCare had weeks to come up with better offers to keep their employees or figure out alternate staffing solutions and instead chose to initiate court action days before the workers were set to start at Ascension, resulting in "a mess of ThedaCare's own making."


In the complaint, ThedaCare attorneys wrote that the organization found out Dec. 21 that four interventional radiology technicians had accepted offers with Ascension, and learned Dec. 29 that two nurses planned to make the same move. On Jan. 7, they learned one additional nurse planned to quit and work at Ascension.


Ascension had offered the employees a better benefits package that ThedaCare did not match, Muth said.


Timothy Breister, an Appleton resident and one of the seven employees involved in the systems' dispute, submitted a letter to McGinnis Friday before the hearing describing his experience.


One of his colleagues received an offer from Ascension that was attractive "not just in pay but also a better work/life balance," which caused others on his team to apply, Breister wrote.


After approaching ThedaCare with the chance to match the offers they'd been given, Breister wrote that they were told "the long term expense to ThedaCare was not worth the short term cost," and no counter-offer would be made.

https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/ne...es/6607417001/

???