»The Landsberg district administrator threatens revenge«

Created: 09/15/2022, 04:55

By: Werner Lauff, Toni Schwaiger

Good friends... District Administrator Thomas Eichinger (left) and CEO Marco Woedl, 2018 at the presentation of the first plans for the conversion of the Landsberg Clinic.

© Lauff

Landsberg – On August 3, 2022, the administrative board of the hospital discussed the dismissal of CEO Marco Woedl.

In order to prevent them, district administrator Thomas Eichinger (CSU) put pressure on the members present shortly before the vote.

If the decision is made to Woedl's disadvantage, he will immediately fire some medical and other employees of the clinic;

he indicated that he had ready-made resignations with him.

As reported in KREISBOTEN, the vote then ended with 8:7 votes in favor of Woedl.

This was revealed to the KREISBOTEN by several members of the committee, which met behind closed doors - independently of one another and with the same content.

"I would never have thought that such a process would be possible in Germany," one of the members later explained in an interview with our editors.

"A district administrator intimidating a board by threatening revenge on the staff - that's unbelievable."

Another member reported that he was unable to properly express his feelings in the session.

“Apparently we should play fate.

If you make the right decision, everything stays as it is, if you make the wrong decision, heads will roll.

I was shaking with anger on the way back.” All of the informants wished to remain anonymous because they feared reprisals.

Two scenarios

In the subsequent evaluation of the process, it is important to distinguish between two possible scenarios.

One thing: Eichinger really wanted to lay off employees at the clinic;

the vendetta was indeed imminent.

The other scenario: Eichinger, an amateur actor (regularly on the Jakobsbühne Schondorf), bluffed and told the board of directors the untruth.

The employees of the clinic have the greatest interest in knowing which variant applies.

Did the district administrator really want to terminate those who spoke critically or supported submissions with their signatures?

Does the district administrator keep a blacklist of unwanted doctors, nurses and other employees?

If so, who likes it, who is spared?

Do those affected still have to expect to be fired?

Whether affected or not: All employees should be shaken to the core by this process.

What kind of hospital is it where you can be dismissed for speaking up on official matters?

Should one still dare to formulate or support a submission to the board of directors, the district administrator or the board of directors?

And is one still allowed to stay in such a place or does the following apply: save yourself, who can?

No reason for termination

A subsequent fact check shows: Eichinger actually has the opportunity to announce resignations as the next superior after the “Woedl” level has been abolished.

However, there would have to be reasons for termination.

Termination for operational, behavioral or personal reasons is possible.

There is currently no reason for redundancies;

the clinic is looking for employees and intends to expand in the near future.

Conduct-related terminations presuppose that the persons concerned have violated official duties;

but there is no indication of this, in particular no previous warnings.

What remains is termination for personal reasons, for example because of a crime committed;

nothing relevant happened there either.

So what is the reason for termination in the letters of termination?

Apparently, the board of directors neither asked nor checked the plausibility of Eichinger's assertion.

It was obvious that those affected were able to successfully contest the dismissals.

But this is not just about the illegality of an intended dismissal.

Already the implemented behavior of the District Administrator is worthy of criticism.

It is true that employees can be threatened with their termination, for example in order to obtain a termination agreement.

However, this does not work towards third parties and not in order to achieve good behavior from these third parties.

Anyone who exploits employees as leverage, treats them as bargaining chips, uses them as tools shows little empathy towards them and endangers the clinic as an institution.

It seems as if the fate of the hospital is less important to the district administrator than the preservation of the board member Woedl in the hospital's executive office.

also read

The scratch cellar in Landsberg, a kibbutz?

Dementia!

René Weller is now »at the bottom«

ratio reversed

What if it was just a big bluff?

That doesn't make things any better.

It doesn't matter at all whether the letters were already formulated or not.

Because the core message from the district administrator is the same in both cases: Anyone who criticizes in the Landsberg clinic flies.

And in both cases, Eichinger used the exercise of operational powers as a threat to undermine the board's substantive decision-making and control rights.

In doing so, he virtually reversed the relationship between the district administrator and the board of directors.

In the case of the bluff, there would also be a lie involved.

The causa "Eichinger/Woedl" caused frowns from the start.

It is nothing unusual for the board of directors of a hospital to have a part-time job.

Giving lectures, publishing in a trade journal, accepting a mandate on a supervisory board.

However, the fact that the district administrator allowed the newly appointed board member to run a company in parallel for years, the "Cupertino Consulting GmbH" in Reichertshausen, goes far beyond the usual.

To this day, Woedl describes himself equally as "CEO of the Klinikum Landsberg am Lech & CEO of Cupertino Consulting GmbH".

It is particularly piquant that Eichinger gave the approval to the actually responsible board of directors (the KREISBOTE reported).

Even then, Eichinger and Woedl were said to have a particularly close relationship;

it has obviously gotten even better, because now Eichinger Woedl has practically crammed it out.

The damage is considerable.

The incident harms the clinic because it loses talent and finds it harder to recruit new employees.

The employees who acted with good intentions but are now being treated like saboteurs.

The district, whose negotiation and management tools included neither threats nor bluffs until a few years ago.

The board of directors of the clinic, which apparently could only be kept in office with a show of strength from the district administrator.

And the district administrator himself, about whose anchoring in the democratic value system some people are now thinking.

One thing is obvious: what happened on August 3, 2022 in the administrative board of the Klinikum Landsberg is an undignified, embarrassing violation of the rules.

It shouldn't have happened.