I would assume that the nurses' employment contract includes conditions for termination of employment such as advance notice. If they gave sufficiently advanced notice of quitting under the conditions of their contract, then the prosecutors have no leg to stand on. If they did not, the nurses are in legal do-do.
Now where do you draw that conclusion? No where in the article does it mention how much they were paid. Just because the group was a minority and there was a dispute about the wages does not mean they were slave labor. I enjoy serious discussions but please lets stick to the facts of the article rather than drawing conclusions based on assumptions.
Surely they'd be in legal do-do for a civil breach of contract not for criminal charges of child endangerment? Really starting to wish I studied law at some point, but that would make me to lawyer like to live with myself.
Um, this is getting attention now??? Holy thread revival! Anyway, there are a couple different legal standards at work here, one of which should pre-empt the other. The civil / licensure standard requires a much lower burden of proof than the criminal, and yet that burden of proof was not met as the state authorities found nothing wrong with their actions. In order to get a criminal conviction the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the nurses actions endangered the children, whereas the state has already decided that the preponderance of the evidence does not indicate this. It seems to me that this is a case of a business using the law to try to intimidate workers from exercising their rights.
The thread was bumped by a spam posting which I deleted before replying. Didn't look at the post date, sorry. Where people 's jobs involve special powers, responsibilities and positions of trust criminal law (in this case: criminal neglect) may apply. But I agree it looks like bullying. Not the first time business uses political influence to bend the law.
